Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (EVESHAM AND PERSHORE JOINT HOSPITAL DISTRICT) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Evesham and Pershore Joint Hospital District," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 34.]

MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDER (PORT OF MANCHESTER) BILL,

"to confirm a Provisional Order of the Minister of Health relating to the Port of Manchester," presented by Sir Kingsley Wood; read the First time; and referred to the Examiners of Petitions for Private Bills, and to be printed. [Bill 35.]

Oral Answers to Questions — INDIA.

CIVIL AVIATION.

Mr. DAY: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India the amount

expended to date by the Government of India with the object of developing civil aviation in India, giving separately the amount that has been contributed towards light aeroplane clubs during the three years ended to the last convenient date?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for INDIA (Mr. Butler): Since the reply contains a table of figures I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. DAY: Will the figures include the amount expended at Bombay and Karachi?

Mr. BUTLER: The figures correspond to the hon. Member's question.

Following is the reply:

The total expenditure of the Government of India on civil aviation during the 15 years ending 31st March, 1936, amounted to Rs.166½ lakhs, or approximately £1,250,000. During the three years ending 31st March, 1936, the following amounts were expended by way of assistance to flying clubs in India:



Rs.


1933 34
1,25,800


1934–35
1,30,900


1935–36
1,33,000


Total
Rs.3,89,700

BURMA.

Mr.GALLAGHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what


progress has been made with the demarcation of the Burma-Yunnan frontier by the joint Sino-British Commission; when the work of the Commission is expected to be completed; whether he can make a statement with regard to the general situation in Burma; and what information can he give as to the reasons for floggings inflicted in Burma?

Mr. BUTLER: Last winter the Commission accomplished rather more than half its task, which it is expected to complete this winter. The reason for the larger number of whippings in Burma, as compared with other Provinces, is the prevalence of crimes of personal violence in that Province. The general situation in Burma remains satisfactory.

Mr. GALLACHER: Can the Under-Secretary say whether the system of flogging has produced any result in the way of putting an end to personal acts of violence? Has it not had the opposite effect, and therefore should be stopped?

Mr. BUTLER: My information is that it has had a deterrent effect.

SINO-KASIIMIR FRONTIER.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India with reference to the recent visits of the Foreign Secretary of the Government of India and the Governor-General of India to Kashmir, what was the purpose of their visits; whether he can make a statement as to the disturbances which have taken place from time to time on the SinoKashmir frontier; and whether arms are being exported from India to northeastern China?

Mr. BUTLER: His Excellency the Viceroy paid a visit of courtesy to the Maharaja of Kashmir in October. The Foreign Secretary to the Government of India visited Gilgit this month to discuss administrative questions. There have been no disturbances on the border between India and Chinese Turkestan, and no arms are being exported from India to north-eastern China.

Mr. GALLACHER: Is the Under-Secretary aware of the reports which are being circulated in certain Indian newspapers to the effect that an army is being mobilised?

Mr. BUTLER: I have given the hon. Member the information in my possession.

INSTRUMENTS OF ACCESSION.

Major-General Sir ALFRED KNOX: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India what instructions have been issued to the three political officers detailed to visit the Princes in connection with the draft Instruments of Accession?

Mr. BUTLER: The gist of the instructions given to these political officers by His Excellency the Viceroy was that they should discuss with the Rulers of the States they visited and with their advisers any difficulties which they had found in estimating the effects of the provisions of the Act, and any proposals which the Rulers had in mind as to the reservations they would desire to make in their Instruments of Accession, with a view to assisting them in determining their attitude towards accession. The officers were further instructed to report direct to His Excellency the results of their discussions and the extent to which they had succeeded in removing by their explanations any difficulties brought to their notice.

Sir A. KNOX: Will the Under-Secretary take steps to see that these officers are warned that no undue pressure is to be brought to bear upon the Princes to agree with the Instruments of Accession?

Mr. BUTLER: The hon. and gallant Member can rest assured that the Princes have expressed their satisfaction that this assistance is being given.

BANGALORE ASSIGNED TRACT.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Under-Secretary of State for India why no reply has yet been received to the petitions submitted in 1934 of the following public bodies against the proposed retrocession of the civil and military station of Bangalore to the Mysore Government: Bangalore Trades' Association, Bangalore Ratepayers' Association, Southern Division Ratepayers' Association, Anglo-Indian and Domiciled European Association, and the Muhammedan community?

Mr. BUTLER: The question of partial retrocession of the Bangalore Assigned Tract is still under the consideration of the Government of India. I would refer my hon. and gallant Friend to the answer I gave on 9th December last to the Noble


Lady the Member for Kinross and West Perth (Duchess of Atholl), as to the further opportunity to be given to local interests to submit their views.

Sir A. KNOX: Should not some reply be given to these people, who really represent the whole of the inhabitants?

Mr. BUTLER: The whole question, as I have informed the House on a previous occasion, is under review.

Oral Answers to Questions — SPAIN.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will address a communication to the Spanish Government explaining the conditions on which he would inquire into the treatment of prisoners in Catholic hands at La Linea, Cadiz, Seville, and Ronda, in order that the Spanish Government may then make a similar offer?

Sir NICHOLAS GRATTAN-DOYLE: Before this question is asked, I should like to call your attention to the well-established rule of this House, that any Member who puts down a question must be responsible for the matter contained therein. As this question insinuates that the Catholics of Spain are belligerents in the civil war and hold prisoners in their hands, and that that fact is notorious and ought to be acknowledged by the right hon. Gentleman, I beg to ask whether the question is in order?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Before you reply, Mr. Speaker, may I ask what term one is to apply to these people? Are they to be called Catholics, Fascists or Rebels? What is the natural antithesis to Communist if not Catholic?

Mr. SPEAKER: Since the hon. Member has drawn my attention to the question I have looked at it, and I think it is in order, although it is open to some possible misinterpretation. While the right hon. and gallant Member has to make himself entirely responsible for anything contained in it, I do not think it is out of order.

Mr. LOGAN: Is not the word "Catholic" redundant? Is there any necessity for it, seeing that there are Catholics in both camps?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order.

Sir A. KNOX: Is not the word "Catholic" properly used, because this party does not burn churches or murder nuns?

The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Eden): I have given careful consideration to the suggestion made by the right hon. and gallant Gentleman. I would, however, point out that the offer of good offices made by His Majesty's Government for an exchange of hostages, by which the latter would recover their liberty, was addressed to both sides. This offer, as I have already stated, remains open. Until it is quite clear that there is no likelihood of its acceptance by both sides, I feel that it would not be desirable to substitute for it alternative action such as the formal inquiry suggested, which would, in any case, be accompanied by considerable practical difficulties and might tend to divert the activities of His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers from the valuable work of a wider humanitarian nature in which they are already engaged in all parts of Spain. I would, moreover, remind the right hon. and gallant Gentleman that His Majesty's Diplomatic and Consular Officers have already very wide authority to intervene at their own discretion for the purpose of mitigating the sufferings of Spanish prisoners.

Sir N. GRATTAN-DOYLE: Is there any truth whatever in the allegation that the Catholic population of Spain are belligerents in the civil war and hold prisoners in their hands?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Archbishop of Westminster, M. Hinsley, has defined it as a crusade?

Mr. EDEN: I do not think that I am called upon to give definitions.

Mr. STEPHEN: Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that those in control in the towns mentioned are the Moors and that the Catholics are on the Government side?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether British vessels calling at Spanish


Mediterranean ports will be protected from search or interference on the high seas and while in territorial waters?

Sir PERCY HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that the rights of British shipping will be safeguarded by His Majesty's Government in the event of an attempt to prevent them entering or leaving the port of Barcelona?

Mr. EDEN: The policy of His Majesty's Government is to take no part in the Spanish war and to give no assistance to either side in the struggle. In pursuance of this policy, His Majesty's Government have been considering further the importation of arms into Spain by sea and the problems arising therefrom. His Majesty's Government have not so far accorded belligerent rights at sea to either side in the Spanish struggle, and they have no present intention of according such rights. As a consequence, His Majesty's ships will, should it prove necessary, protect British merchant ships on the high seas against interference by the ships of either party engaged in the conflict in Spain outside the three-mile limit. At the same time, it is not the intention of His Majesty's Government that British shipping should carry war material from any foreign port to any port in Spain. In order to make this as effective as possible in the circumstances, the Government intend to introduce legislation immediately rendering the carriage of arms to Spain by British ships illegal, and I take this opportunity of warning all British shipping accordingly.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is included in war material? Why should British ships be handicapped in comparison with the ships of foreign countries?

Mr. EDEN: It is not a question of handicaps, but of carrying out the declared policy of His Majesty's Government.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Why should not British ships have the right to carry arms from one port to another when anywhere in the world other countries have that right and are acting on it?

Sir P. HARRIS: Arising out of the reply to Question 19, does the answer

mean that the Government do not recognise the right to search of either party to the war in Spain?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Baronet will appreciate that the answer deals with the situation on the high seas; that is, outside the three-mile limit.

Mr. SHINWELL: In his definition of war material, does the right hon. Gentleman distinguish between munitions and ordinary commodities, such as coal?

Mr. THURTLE: Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to take power to prohibit the importation or carrying of arms not only to Spanish ports, but also to ports in Portugal?

Mr. R. ACLAND: Is the proposed legislation dependent on other European countries passing and enforcing similar legislation on their part?

Mr. EDEN: We should naturally wish that they would do so, but we consider we have our own duty to do so.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether, by this answer or this policy, we concede rights to search within the three-mile limit, or whether British ships would still retain their rights outside the three-mile limit?

Mr. EDEN: It is quite a different situation inside the three-mile limit. Nothing I have said affects that.

Mr. BELLENGER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether information has yet been received by his Department that the Spanish rebel forces intend to blockade any of the Mediterranean ports of Spain; whether His Majesty's Government will recognise such a blockade; and whether, in consequence any British naval units now stationed at such ports will be withdrawn?

Mr. EDEN: The answer to the first part of the question is No, Sir. The second and third parts do not, therefore, arise.

Mr. BELLENGER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to Press reports alleging that the rebel leaders have stated that they are proposing to blockade certain ports in the Mediterranean, and will he take steps, if such be the case, adequately to protect legitimate British interests in those ports?

Mr. EDEN: The hon. Member asked me whether my Department has received any information; my answer is that we have not.

Mr. BELLENGER: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the Press reports?

Mr. SPEAKER: The Minister is not responsible for them.

Mr. HICKS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any approach has been made to him by the French Government with a view to initiating a review of the Non-Intervention Agreement; and whether, in view of the growing feeling in Great Britain that the Non-Intervention Agreement is being violated to the disadvantage of the democratically-elected Government of Spain, he will indicate the readiness of His Majesty's Government to participate in such a review?

Mr. EDEN: No, Sir. On the contrary, the French Government have expressed to me within the last 24 hours their desire that the present Non-Intervention Agreement should continue.

Mr. HICKS: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that the present situation is very unsatisfactory? Is it not a fact that there is a Non-Intervention Committee sitting and that two of the Governments, at any rate, have publicly declared their recognition of one of the parties to the dispute, and is that not intervention in itself—if not material, at least moral intervention? Is not the position very unsatisfactory, indeed?

Mr. EDEN: I agree with the hon. Member to this extent, that I am not satisfied with the position either; but my care has to be to make sure that I do not take action which might given even greater cause for dissatisfaction.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Were the present Government in Spain actually elected by anyone?

Sir P. HARRIS: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will consult with the French Government with a view to ensuring joint action in the case of any violation of the rights of British or French shipping desiring to enter or leave Spanish ports?

Mr. EDEN: I can assure the hon. Member that His Majesty's Government are in close touch with the French Government on all questions arising out of the present situation in Spain.

Sir P. HARRIS: Do I understand that there is the closest co-operation in this policy with reference to the protection of British shipping?

Mr. EDEN: I saw the French Ambassador this morning and gave him information of this policy.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Are the French Government also going to bring in a law preventing their shipping from carrying arms?

Mr. EDEN: That is a matter for the French Government.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Have not both sides a perfect right to control the port of Barcelona as they please?

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDITERRANEAN (TURKEY).

Colonel WEDGWOOD: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether, in coming to any arrangement regarding Italian and British interests in the Mediterranean, he will see that nothing is agreed to by His Majesty's Government which could prejudice our old friendship for and the interests of the Turkish Republic?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir. I am happy to say that I can foresee no circumstances in which any course prejudicial to Anglo-Turkish friendship would even require to be considered.

Oral Answers to Questions — JAPAN (BRITISH SAILORS' TREATMENT).

Sir CHARLES CAYZER: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he can now state the nature of the reply which he has received from the Japanese Government in respect of the representations made by him in connection with the ill-treatment of three British sailors at Keelung, in Formosa?

Mr. EDEN: Yes, Sir, and in order to remove any misapprehensions which may exist regarding this matter I propose briefly to recapitulate the facts as they emerge from a very thorough investigation by a Naval Court of Inquiry recently


held in Hong Kong. On 7th October three naval ratings belonging to a British flotilla visiting Keelung in Formosa were arrested by the Japanese police charged with the non-payment of a taxi-cab fare. There was, however, good evidence to show that the taxi-driver had been paid. During their examination at the police station the three ratings were called liars and repeatedly struck in the face by the examining officer. It was subsequently found that one of the ratings had had his jaw fractured by a blow dealt him by this official. A British naval officer, who intervened to try to secure the men's release, although he was in uniform and his status therefore unmistakable, was insulted by the same police official. Ultimately the British officer advised the men to say that they had not paid as the only means of getting away.
The incident was of such a nature and the evidence so clear that His Majesty's Government instructed His Majesty's Ambassador at Tokyo to inform the Japanese Government that the visit of courtesy due to be paid by the Commander-in-Chief, China station, to Yokohama on 30th October could not take place unless due apology were made, instructions issued for the punishment of the police officers responsible, compensation given to the injured man and steps taken to prevent the recurrence of such incidents. The Japanese Government did not feel able to give this measure of satisfaction at once, feeling that they must investigate the charges for themselves. The Ambassador accordingly informed them that the Commander-in-Chief's visit was postponed in order to give them time to satisfy themselves of the truth of the charges against the Formosa police.
On 10th November His Majesty's Ambassador communicated to the Japanese Government a copy of the report of the Court of Inquiry set up at Hong Kong by the British naval authorities with the suggestion that the facts disclosed therein should be compared with the report of the Procurator in Formosa before the Japanese Government furnished their final reply. The Japanese Government have now sent an interim reply expressing regret that such an unpleasant incident should have occurred and stating that further inquiries are being made in the light of the Hong

Kong Court of Inquiry's report, a copy of which has been sent to the officials conducting the inquiry. Pending the receipt of a satisfactory final reply from the Japanese Government, I am unable to regard the incident as closed.

Sir C. CAYZER: Can my right hon. Friend say whether, until full satisfaction has been afforded to His Majesty's Government by the Japanese Government in, connection with this incident, His Majesty's Government intend to permit further visits of courtesy by His Majesty's warships to Japanese ports or to receive similar visits from Japanese warships to British ports?

Mr. EDEN: My answer makes it clear that satisfaction in this matter would have to be a preliminary.

Oral Answers to Questions — CHINA.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent the Chinese Government are permitted to exercise authority in the inner Mongolian provinces of Chahar, Suiyuan, and Ninghsia; and by whom they are prevented from exercising the ordinary powers of government?

Mr. EDEN: The authority in these provinces generally is in the hands of provincial governments of Mongolian Autonomy Councils set up by the Chinese Government. At the present moment, when the situation is complicated by the action of bandits and irregulars, it is difficult to say to what extent these bodies exercise their authority effectively in each case.

Mr. CHORLTON: What special steps is my right hon. Friend taking to find out the exact position, and is he sending anyone to ascertain the facts?

Mr. EDEN: I think it would be better if my hon. Friend consulted me about this.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any communications from the Chinese Government about the possibility or otherwise of guaranteeing the safety of foreigners in the Province of Suiyuan owing to the hostilities opened by a mixed force of Manchukuoans and Mongols against the Chinese governor of the province?

Mr. EDEN: His Majesty's representative in Peking has received a circular note from the Chinese Government informing him of the suspension of travel passes for foreigners in Suiyuan and neighbouring provinces on account of measures being taken for the suppression of brigandage and requesting that instructions might be given for the evacuation of British subjects from the provinces concerned. Missionaries have been requested to keep in close touch with local authorities and to follow their advice.

Mr. CHORLTON: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has received any information as to military operations on a comprehensive scale between General Fu Tso-yi, Chinese Governor of Suiyuan, acting on behalf of the Central Government of China, and a mixed force of Manchukuoan and Mongol troops; and whether there is any evidence as to whether the insurgent forces are supported by the Japanese Government or military authorities?

Mr. EDEN: There have been numerous and conflicting reports regarding the incursion of a force of Mongolians and irregulars under a bandit leader into the province of Suiyuan. This incursion appears to have been successfully opposed by General Fu Tso-yi, the Governor of the province. I have no information to show that active support is being afforded to the irregulars by Manchukuo or Japanese regular troops.

Mr. STEPHEN: Have His Majesty?s, Government accorded belligerent rights to the Central Government in this case?

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-EGYPTIAN TREATY.

Sir JOHN MELLOR: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many officers, non-commissioned officers, and constables of British nationality serving in the police forces of Cairo, Alexandria, Port Said and Suez will have their services terminated during the course of the five years following ratification of the Anglo-Egyptian Treaty in consequence of the provisions annexed to the treaty; whether they will be entitled to pensions from the Egyptian Government; and, if not, what steps do His Majesty's Government propose to take to obtain compensation from the Egyptian.

Government for the termination of their services?

Mr. EDEN: Under the terms of the Treaty of Friendship and Alliance with Egypt, 49 officers and 219 constables of British nationality now serving in the Egyptian City Police will have their services terminated during the course of the five years following the ratification of the treaty. Some of the officers and constables concerned have already received compensation and are entitled to receive a pension from the Egyptian Government, while others who have not received compensation are entitled to receive a pension. I understand that the Egyptian Government propose to grant compensation to these' officers and constables who are not included in the above categories, and I have no doubt that, in assessing this compensation, the Egyptian Government will, once again, give evidence of the generous spirit which has always characterised their treatment of British officials. I need hardly assure my hon. Friend that His Majesty's Government have been giving and will continue to give this important matter their most active and sympathetic attention.

Sir J. MELLOR: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his answer, may I ask him whether he will consult the Secretary of State for the Colonies to see whether these men could be absorbed in due course into British forces in our colonies and mandated territories?

Mr. EDEN: I have already done so; and with the Secretary of State for the Dominions also.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

PARIS EXHIBITION (UNITED KINGDOM PAVILION).

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: asked the Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department (1) whether he will make arrangements for exhibitions to be held to enable people to submit exhibits of British art and industry in preparation for the British pavilion at the Paris Fair to be held in 1937;
(2) what arrangements have been made to give pottery manufacturers and designers fair and equal opportunity, with proper notice, to produce and submit for adjudication articles for exhibition at the British pavilion at the Paris Fair, 1937?

Captain EUAN WALLACE (Secretary, Overseas Trade Department): The Council for Art and Industry have, at the invitation of His Majesty's Government, undertaken responsibility for the selection of exhibits and for their arrangement and display in the United Kingdom pavilion at the Paris Exhibition of Industrial Art to be held next year. The arrangements made by the Council for discharging that responsibility are described in the printed brochure which I sent to the hon. Member on 14th September. Information on the subject of the forthcoming exhibition and the proposed participation by His Majesty's Government was circulated to the Press some months ago: and steps were taken through the medium of the trade associations concerned in the various industries, to secure that the facts were made known as widely as possible. In regard to the pottery industry, a special display was arranged by the Pottery Manufacturers Association at Burslem last week, to enable further articles to be submitted to the searchers. I cannot in these circumstances accept the proposal made in the hon. Member's first question.

Mr. SMITH: May I be allowed to thank the right hon. and gallant Gentleman and the Department for the attention given to this matter?

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: Has the right hon. and gallant Gentleman made any representations to the French Government asking them to reduce the duties on the relative British goods, so that when the French public want to buy them from the samples exhibited we may be able to sell them to France?

Captain WALLACE: That does not arise out of the question.

GERMANY (BRITISH SHIPBUILDING ORDERS).

Mr. E. SMITH: asked the President of the Board of Trade what steps are being taken to deal with the effect on British shipbuilding of the arrangements reported on pages 116 and 117 of the report issued by the Overseas Trade Department on economic conditions in Germany?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of TRADE (Dr. Burgin): I presume that the hon. Member has in

mind the references in the report to orders placed for tonnage in German yards by British concerns as a means of liquidating frozen Marks. In this connection I have nothing to add to the reply given to the hon. and gallant Member for the Isle of Wight (Captain P. Macdonald) on 16th June.

IMPERIAL SMEJ,TING CORPORATION'S WORKS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that the Imperial Smelting Corporation will be compelled to close down their zinc section at Bloxwich following on the recent closing down of their zinc section at Seaton Carew, which is in a, distressed area; and whether, in view of the Government's declared intention to create new industries in distressed areas, he will take whatever steps he possibly can to prevent existing industries from being closed down?

Dr. BURGIN: Statements about the Imperial Smelting Corporation's works at Seaton Carew and Bloxwich have been brought to my notice. The Government are, of course, most anxious to take whatever steps are possible to prevent the closing down of existing industries in the Special Areas or elsewhere.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: In view of the importance of zinc in war time, will the hon. Gentleman take some steps to protect this industry?

Mr. LECKIE: Is my hon. Friend aware that if these smelting works at Bloxwich are closed down, it will involve the dismissal of 60 or 70 men?

Dr. BURGIN: The importance of zinc is appreciated, and discussions are taking place between the Board of Trade and the particular company referred to.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEE VALLEY DRAINAGE.

Mr. McENTEE: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he can make a statement as to the present position of the scheme being prepared by the Lee Conservancy Catchment Board for the draining of the Lee Valley watershed between Roydon and Stratford?

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Mr. W. S. Morrison): I am informed that a preliminary scheme has been prepared


by the catchment board, and has been submitted to an eminent consulting engineer for his advice. I understand that this advice is expected shortly, and that the board will then decide whether the scheme is to be carried out.

Mr. McENTEE: In view of the fact that the scheme has been under consideration for many years, and that serious damage is being done from time to time by flooding, will the right hon. Gentleman's Department expedite the carrying out of the scheme?

Mr. MORRISON: Certainly, Sir. As far as I can help in that way, I certainly shall do so.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE.

New FOREST (PASTURAGE RESTRICTIONS).

Major MILLS: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he will give compensation to those smallholders who are commoners of the New Forest and who have suffered much loss and inconvenience by being prevented from exercising their right to depasture their cattle in the open forest, owing to the restrictions imposed by the Ministry in connection with the recent cases of foot-and-mouth disease on private premises at Sway and near Lymington?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Diseases of Animals Acts make no provision for the payment of compensation in connection with measures taken to prevent the spread of foot-and-mouth disease except to owners in respect of animals slaughtered compulsorily, and I regret I am not able to adopt my hon. and gallant Friend's suggestion. I am glad, however, to state that it was possible to withdraw the restrictions from the area referred to as from 20th November.

EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. ACLAND: asked the Minister of Agriculture whether there has been an increase or decline in the number of agricultural workers, all classes, since the inception of the bacon quota and other schemes designed to limit the importation of foodstuffs; what annual increase or decline there has been during the past three years; and whether he is satisfied with these figures?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: There has been a steady decline in the total number of agricultural workers in Great Britain over the last ten years. During the last three years the average annual decrease has amounted to 26,000. I do not accept the implication contained in the question that the decline since 1932 has any connection with the policy of regulating imports. On the contrary, agricultural output in Great Britain has markedly increased since this policy was adopted.

CONSUMERS' COMMITTEE.

Mr. ACLAND: asked the Minister of Agriculture what duties were defined for the consumers' committee which was appointed in December, 1933, in pursuance of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931; whether it is representative of all classes of society; how many times this committee has met since its inception and during the past year; and what activities have been undertaken by it?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The duties of a consumers' committee appointed under Section 9 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 1931, are as defined in Section 9 (2) (b) of that Act. I am sending the hon. Member a list of the members of the committees for Great Britain and England from which he will see that the committees are well qualified to represent consumers. The consumers' committee for Great Britain and England have met 18 and 19 times respectively since their appointment, of which meetings nine and three respectively have been held this year. These figures include meetings of sub-committees. The committee for England have considered a number of complaints, and have made four reports to the Minister regarding the operation of the Milk Marketing Scheme. The Great Britain committee has reported as to the operation of the potato marketing scheme. These reports have been published and are obtainable on request from my Department. I would add that the Food Council, the personnel of which is identical with that of the Great Britain committee, will shortly report to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade regarding the operation of the pigs and bacon marketing schemes.

SUGAR-BEET TRANSPORT CHARGES.

Captain PETER MACDONALD: asked the Minister of Agriculture


whether the Sugar Commission has yet reached any decision with regard to the possibility of reducing the transport charges incurred by growers of sugar-beet situated at a considerable distance from the nearest factory; and to what extent this will equalise the amount received for sugar-beet by a grower in Suffolk with the amount received by a grower in the Isle of Wight?

Mr. W. S. MORRISON: The Sugar Commission, in announcing their recent award on the terms and conditions of the contract for the purchase of next season's beet crop, have referred to the special claims made by growers in areas distant from any factory to be relieved of some part of their freight charges. The commission consider that this question is closely linked up with the question of factory siting and capacity, on which further investigation is required. Pending the result of this investigation, and without prejudice to future policy in this respect, the commission have decided that for the 1937 season the British Sugar Corporation shall defray railway freight charges in excess of 7s. per ton on all sugar-beet accepted by the corporation for delivery to the factories at Allscott and Kidderminster. With regard to the second part of the question, the commission inform me that it is not possible to make any useful comparison between the amount received for sugar-beet by growers in Suffolk and the Isle of Wight, as the receipts will vary with the situation of the individual farm and the factory to which the beet is consigned.

Oral Answers to Questions — BRITISH BROADCASTING CORPORATION.

EDUCATION.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he has considered the copy sent him of proposals for developing educational broadcasting entitled "Broadcasting and Education," by J. Howard Whitehouse, a former Member of this House; and whether he will give the proposals his consideration?

The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Major Tryon): I have received a copy of the book; but the proposals it contains are primarily for consideration by the British

Broadcasting Corporation and the education authorities.

Sir PATRICK HANNON: Can the right hon. and gallant Gentleman say that representations of this kind are receiving the serious consideration of the British Broadcasting Corporation?

Major TRYON: Yes, Sir. I can say that this book is being considered by the British Broadcasting Corporation and by the Central Council for School Broadcasting.

TELEVISION (FACILITIES, MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will ascertain whether the British Broadcasting Corporation proposes to invite Members of Parliament to visit Alexandra Palace television station at an early date?

Major TRYON: I am informed by the British Broadcasting Corporation that, with the approval of Mr. Speaker, they are already studying the possibility of installing television receivers for a limited period in a Committee Room of this House. Such an arrangement is felt likely to be of more general interest to Members than organised visits to the transmitting station at the Alexandra Palace. If, however, any individual Member is anxious to visit the Alexandra Palace meantime, I understand that the British Broadcasting Corporation will be glad to arrange a private visit for him.

LAMBERT V. LEVITA.

Sir P. HANNON: asked the Prime Minister whether he will give the House the terms of reference of the tribunal he has caused to be set up to inquire into matters arising out of the Lambert v. Levita case?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Baldwin): The following are the terms of the minute dated the 11th instant constituting the board of inquiry:
The Prime Minister, after consultation with the Postmaster-General, directs that an inquiry shall be held forthwith into certain statements made in the course of the recent case Lambert v. Levita affecting the British Broadcasting Corporation. The following will be the members of the special board of inquiry:
Sir Josiah Stamp, G.C.B., G.B.E., Chairman of the London Midland and Scottish Railway, and formerly of the Board of Inland Revenue;


Sir Maurice Gwyer, K.C.B., K.C.S.I., K.C., First Parliamentary Counsel;
Sir Findlater Stewart, G.C.I.E., K.C.B., C.S.I., Permanent Under-Secretary of State for India.

Sir P. HANNON: Will the report of the tribunal be laid on the Table of the House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am under the impression that I gave an answer to that question last week, when I said that when the report was submitted the Prime Minister would decide whether that course should be followed or not.

Mr. STEPHEN: Does not the Prime Minister think that it would have been better to appoint a judicial committee as in the case of the Budget inquiry?

The PRIME MINISTER: No. If I had thought so I should have done it.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: Will the minutes of evidence be published at the appropriate time?

The PRIME MINISTER: I should want notice of that question.

Mr. SIMMONDS: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the grave concern that is being felt because the evidence has apparently been completed without Major Gladstone Murray being heard, and can he assure the House that it is the desire of the Government that this tribunal should make a searching investigation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I must have notice of that question. I have no idea whether that is the case or not.

Oral Answers to Questions — POST OFFICE.

LONDON TELEPHONE SERVICE (ENGINEERS, OVERTIME).

Mr. VIANT: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is satisfied it is in the national interest that the Post Office engineers of the telephone service in London should continue to work overtime to the extent of 1,555,712 hours for the period from 1st January to 30th September, 1936, an increase of 146,888 hours in excess of the overtime worked for the 12 months of 1935, while recruitment has decreased by no less a number than 120?

Major TRYON: I am satisfied that no effort has been spared to recruit additional staff as speedily as possible and thus to keep down the amount of overtime as far as has been practicable in view of the great increase in work. The rate of recruitment in 1936 as compared with 1935 has not fallen off but has increased, the average number of additional men engaged per month in London having been 55 last year and 60 in the first nine months of the current year.

Mr. VIANT: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the figures I have given here are the result of the figures in his last reply to me?

Major TRYON: I am aware of that, and the figures are perfectly correct. The hon. Member talks of recruitment falling off whereas recruitment has been more rapid. He is comparing nine months of this year with the whole 12 months of last year.

CHRISTMAS WORK.

Mr. TINKER: asked the Postmaster-General whether he will make a statement as to the arrangements that will be made to meet the extra work at Christmas time; and how the additional hands required will be engaged?

Major TRYON: The extra work during the coming Christmas season will, as in past years, be provided for as far as possible by the engagement of temporary staff and for the rest by the employment of the regular staff on overtime. As regards the method of selecting the temporary staff, I would refer the hon. Member to my reply to a question asked by the hon. Member for Stoke (Mr. E. Smith) on 19th November.

Mr. TINKER: Could not the overtime be eliminated and extra hands taken on?

Major TRYON: We are doing all we can to keep it down. I think the staff realise that, and readily respond to the special needs of the situation.

Mr. LOGAN: Will the right hon. and gallant Gentleman see that, in regard to ex-service men, the stipulation that men over 45 will not be engaged, is rescinded?

Major TRYON: I will certainly go into that matter. Preference is given to ex-service men, and there is no maximum age limit.

Mr. LOGAN: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that in reply to me he said this condition was not in operation, but that in the City of Liverpool it is in operation; and will he see that it is rescinded?

Major TRYON: I will certainly look into it.

AUTOMATIC TELEPHONE EXCHANGES.

Mr. DAY: asked the Postmaster-General whether, in view of the fact that the automatic telephone exchanges have proved to be satisfactory in the London area, he will state when it is proposed to convert and instal this system throughout England and Wales; and can he give the estimated cost of this change over from the manual exchange system when it is completed?

Major TRYON: Considerable progress has already been made in the conversion to automatic working of areas outside the metropolis, 50 per cent. of the subscribers now being served by automatic exchanges. The programme of conversion is being pushed ahead as speedily as possible having regard to the very rapid expansion in telephone service in other directions. Provision is made for expansion as well as conversion when exchanges become automatic, and it is not possible to estimate the cost of conversion as distinct from the general cost of new plant.

Mr. DAY: Can the Minister tell us how many men who are at present employed will be displaced as a result of conversion to automatic working throughout the country?

Major TRYON: Our staff, as I have already informed the House, is increasing.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN: What are the savings affected by the conversion to automatic working?

Major TRYON: It is not possible to give a statement of savings, but it is certain that an enormous amount of additional engineering employment is given.

Mr. RATHBONE: Can my right hon. and gallant Friend say when the Victoria Exchange in London is likely to be moved across, as the service there is particularly bad?

Major TRYON: Not without notice.

CHRISTMAS GREETINGS TELEGRAMS.

Mr. ACLAND: asked the Postmaster-General the charges for Christmas greeting telegrams and the number sent; and whether this concession results in a profit or involves a loss to the Post Office?

Major TRYON: I assume that the hon. Member refers to the service of Christmas greetings telegrams to the Dominions and other places oversea. The charges for these messages vary according to the country of destination but are usually half the ordinary rate for places in Europe and less than half for other places. The number dealt with by the Post Office last Christmas was approximately 80,000, of which 70,000 were accepted or delivered on behalf of the telegraph companies by whom they were forwarded abroad. It is difficult to estimate the financial effect of these special services; but it is probable that the revenue received by the Post Office for its share of the work did not cover the cost involved.

Ex-SERVICE MEN.

Sir A. KNOX: asked the Postmaster-General how many postmen and porters were permanently appointed in 1935; and how many of these men were Army reservists?

Major TRYON: 3,411 vacancies for postmen and porters were filled in 1935. Of these 1,796 were allocated to ex-service men and 1,615 to Post Office servants, mainly boy messengers. 1,081 of the ex-service men were ex-soldiers. The available records do not show how many of these were Army Reservists.

Sir A. KNOX: Is there any reason why these Post Office messengers could not join up in the Army and after serving their term in the Army join the Post Office?

AIR MAIL (MAJORCA).

Miss RATHBONE: asked the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that air mail letters to Majorca which used to be sent via Marseilles are now only carried if marked via Rome; by whose authority has this change of postal arrangements been made; and whether this involves any censorship of correspondence by the Italian authorities?

Major TRYON: No air snail service from this country to Majorca is advertised. I understand that an air service


was started recently between Rome and Majorca, but it has not been notified as available by the Italian Post Office. One or two members of the public who have applied to be allowed to send letters to Majorca by this route have been permitted to do so.

Miss RATHBONE: Is the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that correspondence used to be sent via Marseilles, and can he say why it has been changed? Is he further aware that Majorca is virtually in Italian occupation and that the diversion of correspondence round by Rome may entail very serious and unpleasant consequences for any inhabitants of Majorca who happen to express sympathy with the lawful Government in Spain?

Major TRYON: The hon. Member has been seriously misinformed. This traffic has not been transferred round by Italy. The normal course with air mail correspondence going to Majorca would be to forward it by the ordinary route, but in the absence of any available air service at present, these mails go by France for onward transmission by sea from Marseilles, apart from occasional all-sea opportunities from this country.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSES OF PARLIAMENT (RESTORATION).

Mr. DAY: asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health, as representing the First Commissioner of Works, when the work of replacing and/or repairing the exterior of the Houses of Parliament will be completed; how much has been completed up to date; and will he give particulars of any difficulty or delay in obtaining the necessary stone for this work?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: (for the First Commissioner of Works): It is anticipated that the restoration of the stonework of the exterior of the Houses of Parliament will be completed by March 1942. Rather more than half of the work has already been done. It has been necessary to exercise care in the selection of stone but this has not delayed the work, which is proceeding at the most economical rate.

Mr. DAY: Can the hon. Gentleman say what the cost of this work will be when

completed? Is it not a fact that it will be close on £1,000,000?

Sir JOHN HASLAM: Can arrangements be made so that the unsightly scaffolding will be removed at the time of the Coronation?

Mr. HUDSON: As I have already stated, it cannot all be removed, but steps will be taken to lower the height of the scaffolding in New Palace Yard.

Oral Answers to Questions — THE CORONATION.

FOREIGN-MADE GOODS.

Mr. SMEDLEY CROOKE: asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the great inflow of foreign-made Coronation goods coming into the country, he will take steps to have the proposed import duties put on at once or at least from a date not later than 1st December?

Dr. BURGIN: I am not aware that there has been a great inflow of foreign-made Coronation goods; the Import Duties Advisory Committee stated in their recent report that their inquiries did not show that any considerable importation of such goods had yet developed. In any case, having regard to the terms of the Anglo-French and Anglo-German Trade Agreements the increased duty on important classes of these goods could only be imposed with the consent of the French and German Governments. These Governments have consented, in view of the special circumstances, to waive their rights under the Trade Agreements, and the date of operation, 15th December, is part of the understanding which has been reached with them. It is not, therefore, possible to bring these duties into operation at an earlier date.

Sir P. HANNON: In the arrangement of future oversea trade agreements, will my hon. Friend see that embarrassing conditions of this kind will not be embodied?

Mr. GEORGE GRIFFITHS: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether the people who are ordering these goods are those who are on the means test at the present time?

CINEMA AND TELEVISION RECORDS.

Mr. BOSSOM: asked the Lord President of the Council, (1)


whether, in view of the fact that at recent great events in Westminster Abbey a broadcast was allowed and still photographs permitted, he will make arrangements to have a cinema record of the Coronation made, the Abbey authorities or the Government to select the company to make the record of this ceremony;
(2) whether, seeing that television is now an accomplished fact and is distributed by wireless and otherwise, he will make arrangements to have the necessary apparatus installed in Westminster Abbey so that the actual Coronation ceremony may be witnessed throughout the Empire?

The LORD PRESIDENT of the COUNCIL (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald): The matters referred to in these two questions are under consideration. Until experiments have gone a little further perhaps my hon. Friend will be good enough to allow me to say nothing more at present.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOUSING.

RURAL DISTRICTS.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health the number of houses in respect of which guarantees have been given by rural district councils in England and Wales under Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933, and the approximate rentals of such houses?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of HEALTH (Mr. R. S. Hudson): Rural district councils in England and Wales, up to 30th September, 1936, had given guarantees in respect of 1,859 houses under the enactment mentioned by the hon. Member. The weekly rentals of these houses varied from 7s. 6d. to 12s., exclusive of rates, the average weekly rental being 8s. 10d.

BUILDING SOCIETIES (ADVANCES).

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: asked the Minister of Health the number of building societies in England and Wales which are prepared at the present time to make advances on mortgage to house builders with the assistance of guarantees from the local authorities under the terms of the Housing (Financial Provisions) Act, 1933?

Mr. R. S. HUDSON: My right hon. Friend is unable to give any precise figure, but he understands that building societies in general are prepared to make advances where a guarantee from the local authority is forthcoming.

Oral Answers to Questions — DEFENCE.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: asked the Prime Minister whether in order to ensure that in matters of national defence this country as a democracy shall not be at a disadvantage compared with countries under a, dictator, he will appoint a committee to consider and report to Parliament as soon as possible how this peril to our national safety can be met, whether by some such expedient as the private French parliamentary national defence committees or otherwise?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I see no reason to make any such departure from the normal Parliamentary system.

Sir W. DAVISON: Has my right hon. Friend's attention been drawn to the fact that by reason of the French secret Parliamentary Committees referred to in the question, French Members of Parliament of all parties are kept fully informed as to the requirements of national defence, and are always willing to vote what is necessary, without any delay; and as an interval of two years, in accordance with a recent statement, was necessary in this country, does he not think it desirable that some inquiry should be made in this matter to see whether we could not do something of the same kind?

The PRIME MINISTER: If my hon. Friend is good enough to read carefully what I have said on the subject, he will see that the two years had nothing to do with any question that could be affected by the setting up of a committee or otherwise.

Mr. BELLENGER: Does the right hon. Gentleman not realise that many Members of this House are under a disadvantage at present because they are not fully aware of all the facts to enable them to form a proper and well-balanced opinion?

Oral Answers to Questions — FLEET AIR ARM.

Captlin P. MACDONALD: asked the Prime Minister whether any decision


has been reached with regard to the desirability of the Admiralty taking complete control of the Fleet Air Arm; and if not, whether any satisfactory definition has been reached so far as the responsibilities of the Navy with regard to its own methods of air defence and attack are concerned?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of the question is in the negative. As regards the second part, when embarked the Fleet Air Arm comes completely under the operational and disciplinary control of the Admiralty.

Captain MACDONALD: In view of the very urgent and wordy battle that is now raging between the admirals of the Fleet and the marshals of the Air Force, will my right hon. Friend take steps to see that a decision on this question is taken at an early date so that this controversy may come to an end?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have answered the question that was put down.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Will not my right hon. Friend consider, in view of the serious state of affairs, the discontent and the dissatisfaction, having a full inquiry into this matter I One has not taken place since 1923.

Oral Answers to Questions — CINEMATOGRAPH FUND.

Mr. DUNCAN: asked the Lord President of the Council in what manner the Privy Council directed that the money received by the Cinematograph Fund should be applied in 1933, 1934, and 1935; and to what persons or institutions it was distributed?

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: The moneys standing to the credit of the Cinematograph Fund have been applied in the manner prescribed in the Sunday Entertainments Act, 1932. Payments have been made to the Film Institute, on the direction of the Privy Council, of £5,000 in 1934 and £6,000 in 1935. The only other payments made out of the fund have been in respect of the cost of administration, which is slightly less than £100 for each of these years. No payments were made in 1933.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: What is the present balance in the fund?

Mr. MacDONALD: I should prefer notice of that question.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

EXCHANGES (RECRUITING).

Sir W. DAVISON: asked the Minister of Labour whether steps will be taken forthwith to withdraw the instructions now in force with regard to the conduct of officers of the Ministry in Employment Exchanges, which lay down that such officers shall in no circumstances volunteer information or suggest to applicants for work the desirability of enlisting in His Majesty's Forces, in view of the implied slur cast on His Majesty's Forces and of the desirability of men without a job being informed of the advantages of a career in the armed forces of the Crown?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of LABOUR (Lieut.-Colonel Muirhead): This instruction casts no slur on His Majesty's Forces, as is obvious from the fact that recruiting posters are exhibited at the Employment Exchanges and assistance is given there to men seeking information as to service in the Forces. The question of recruiting in all its aspects is, however, being carefully considered.

Sir W. DAVISON: Is my hon. and gallant Friend aware of the recent public statement made by the Prime Minister that there is no more manly or honourable career than service in the Army, and does he not consider it desirable that these instructions should be withdrawn?

EX-SERVICE MEN.

Mr. WAKEFIELD: asked the Minister of Labour the average length of time that sailors, soldiers, and airmen, respectively, remain unemployed after the termination of their period of regular service?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I regret that this information is not available.

ASSISTANCE.

The following Questions stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. BATEY: asked the Minister of Labour whether, as a result of his recent visit to South Wales, steps will now be


taken to abolish the family means test, seeing that it adds to the poverty existing in the distressed areas?

Mr. BEVAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the widespread feeling which exists in all parts of the House concerning the suffering of the unemployed, he will take steps to suspend the new unemployment assistance regulations where their effect is to reduce existing allowances?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I will, if I may, answer numbers 54 and 56 together.

Mr. BEVAN: As No. 56 raises an entirely different question, may I ask that it should be taken separately?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: In answer to the hon. Member for Spennymoor (Mr. Batey), I would refer him to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) last Thursday.

Mr. BATEY: That reply cannot apply to this question. Does not the Minister consider that everything should be done that the Government can do to reduce poverty in the distressed areas? Will he answer that?

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: Is the hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the visit of the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Labour to South Wales has created great expectations, and are we to understand that these are to be disappointed?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Perhaps hon. Members will study the reply which I gave last Thursday, and then, if necessary, put down further questions.

Mr. SHINWELL: Has the Parliamentary Secretary's right hon. Friend seen anything during his tour of South Wales to justify a change?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have not seen my right hon. Friend since he returned from his visit.

Mr. BEVAN: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the widespread feeling which exists in all parts of the House concerning the suffering of the unemployed, he will take steps to suspend the new unemployment assistance regulations where their effect is to reduce existing allowances?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr. Whiteley) last Thursday.

Mr. A. BEVAN: This question was first put to the Prime Minister and was referred to the Minister of Labour. Now the Minister of Labour has referred it to the Parliamentary Secretary. Are they afraid to reply? May I ask whether it is not a fact that unemployment has increased during the last four months, particularly in South Wales, since these Regulations went through the House; and does not that justify a change in the policy of the Government in view of the widespread concern that is felt in the country?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: As far as I am aware it is a common Parliamentary custom to collate questions. If the hon. Member studies the reply which I gave last Thursday I think he will see that it is an adequate reply?

Mr. BEVAN: Is not the effect of the reply that the recent visit to South Wales will be followed up by universal reduction in unemployment allowances in that district?

SPECIAL AREAS (SOUTH WALES).

Mr. GEORGE HALL: asked the Minister of Labour whether, in view of the continued high percentage of unemployment in South Wales, the Government will consider the appointment of an industrial commissioner for that area, with such powers as are necessary to assist in the improvement of existing industries and to make the necessary contact with other industrialists, with the view of inducing them to establish new industries in South Wales?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Government have the question of the Special Areas under review in the light of the Third Report of the Commissioner for Special Areas (England and Wales) and of other suggestions which have been made from time to time. I cannot anticipate any proposals it may be decided to make.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: May I ask whether the House has been put into possession of every report on the distressed areas that the late Commissioner submitted to the Government?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: He has submitted three reports, all of which have been received and studied.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Has the attention of the Department been called to the fact that it is understood that during the recent visit of the Minister of Labour another unpublished report was discussed in South Wales Can the hon. and gallant Gentleman tell the House whether there is such a report, and, if so, whether it will be published to the Members of the House?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: The Commissioner has sent three reports and all of them have been received and studied.

Mr. PRITT: Has there been any communication which might not be called a report?

Mr. T. WILLIAMS: What does the Parliamentary Secretary mean when he says, "have been received and studied"? Studied by whom?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: By my right hon. Friend.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Does that imply that there is one or more reports that have not been made available to Members?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: Three official reports that the Commissioner has sent to my right hon. Friend have been received by him and have been studied by him.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: Is there anything in the statement attributed to the late Commissioner that there is a private report? Are we to understand that such a private report was submitted?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: I have already stated that three reports—

Mr. GRIFFITHS: Any report apart from the three?

Lieut.-Colonel MUIRHEAD: They were the only reports of which my right hon. Friend had any need to take cognisance.

Oral Answers to Questions — NORTH ATLANTIC AIR SERVICE.

Mr. T. JOHNSTON: asked the Under-Secretary of State for Air whether the policy outlined in his statement of 30th July, and subsequently repeated, relative to the North Atlantic air service

still remains the policy of the Government with regard to the subsidisation of air transport companies; and whether it supersedes in any way that announced on behalf of the Government on 19th May?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for AIR (Sir Philip Sassoon): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative, and to the second part in the negative.

Mr. JOHNSTON: In view of the difficulties the Government are evidently finding in distributing their subsidies on this North Atlantic route, would it not be better to nationalise the service right away? In view of the conflicting statements made by representatives of the Government, in the Solicitor-General's speech and in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, could we not have an explicit statement on the subject?

Sir P. SASSOON: The right hon. Gentleman will find that I have always made it perfectly clear in this House that the Government decided two years ago that Imperial Airways should be utilised for the operation of the main Empire air trunk routes, including the North Atlantic, and it is with regard to other subsidised services not included in present arrangements that we suggested that all those interested should have an equal opportunity of submitting proposals.

Mr. JOHNSTON: Is the right hon. Gentleman certain that the speech of the Solicitor-General on 19th May does not refer to the North Atlantic route?

Sir P. SASSOON: I said that I have always made it perfectly clear that Empire routes include the North Atlantic route.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

SECONDARY SCHOOL CHILDREN (HOURS OF WORK).

Mr. PETHERICK: asked the President of the Board of Education whether he can state, for London and the rest of the country, respectively, the average hours of work both in school and at home of the children in secondary schools?

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Shakespeare): The hours of actual work


in secondary day schools in London and elsewhere are normally of the order of 25 hours a week. The amount of time devoted to homework varies so much with each individual child that it would be impossible to reduce any available information to a statistical basis.

Mr. PETH ER I C K: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that excessive homework is being done by a large number of children all over the country, and will he consider calling a conference of education committees and education authorities with a view to discussing this question?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: There is homework and homework.

Mr. LEES-SMITH: May I ask whether the inquiry which the board is undertaking into homework is complete, and whether the hon. Gentleman proposes to make any public statement?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: It is nearly complete. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will put down a question later, in about a week's time.

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (BLACK LIST).

Mr. LECKIE: asked the President of the Board of Education what is the number of elementary schools now on Black List A; whether any additions have been made to that list during the past two years; and when he expects that they will all have been dealt with?

Mr. SHAKESPEARE: The number of schools now in Category A of the Board's list of public elementary schools with defective premises is 166. No additions have been made to the list during the last two years. As regards the last part of the question, the attention of local education authorities has recently been called to the need for action in this matter, and my right hon. Friend is anxious to see all the outstanding cases dealt with as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SINGAPORE (MILITARY FORCES).

Mr. DONNER: asked the Secretary of State for War what military forces are stationed at Singapore at the present time?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the WAR OFFICE (Sir Victor Warrender): My hon. Friend will find the information

he requires on page 139 of the current Monthly Army List, a copy of which is in the Library.

Oral Answers to Questions — ARREST (FREDERICK JOSEPH SWAIN).

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he has considered the case of Frederick Joseph Swain, who was acquitted, both at London Sessions of possessing housebreaking implements by night, and at Westminster Police Court of being a. suspected person; and whether, in view of the re-instatement in the Metropolitan Police of the policy constables who arrested Swain, also of their admissions during their trial at the Central Criminal Court before their acquittal of conspiracy, he will authorise payment of compensation to Swain for his wrongful arrest and detention?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): My right hon. Friend is aware of the facts of the case to which the hon. Member refers, and the matter is under consideration. Perhaps the hon. Member will put down another question in a fortnight's time

Oral Answers to Questions — GERMAN NATIONAL SOCIALIST PARTY.

Mr. GALLACHER: asked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that groups of the German National Socialist party are now being formed in this country; and whether he has any information as to the nature of their activities?

Mr. LLOYD: My right hon. Friend is aware that a branch of the German National Socialist party exists in this country. Its ostensible purpose is to promote the social and cultural welfare of German nationals in this country.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that there are groups of the Russian Communist party in this country, and will he see about their activities?

Mr. GALLACHER: Arising out of the original answer, has the Home Office no information as to their other activities, and will other foreign groups be allowed to form open political crganisations?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is another question.

BILL PRESENTED

IMPORTATION OF PLUMAGE) (PROHIBITION) ACT (1921) AMENDMENT BILL,

"to amend the Importation of Plumage (Prohibition) Act, 1921," presented by Mr. Mathers; supported by Viscountess Astor, Mr. Barr, Colonel Clifton Brown, Mr. Allan Chapman, Mr. Stephen Davies, Mr. Grenfell, Mr. Kingsley Griffith, Mr. Groves, Mr. Graham Kerr, Mr. Lewis, and Miss Rathbone; to be read

a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 36.]

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on Government Business be exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Order (Sittings of the House)."—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 232; Noes, 79.

Division No. 14.]
AYES.
[3.45 p.m.


Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H.
Leighton, Major B. E. P.


Acland, R. T, D. (Barnstaple)
Dugdale, Major T. L.
Levy, T.


Adams, S. V. T. (Leeds, W.)
Duncan, J. A. L.
Lewis, O.


Albery, Sir Irving
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E.
Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J.


Anstruther-Gray, W. J.
Ellis, Sir G.
Lloyd, G. W.


Aske, Sir R. W.
Elliston, G. S.
Locker-Lampson, Comdr. O. S.


Assheton, R.
Emmott, C. E. C. G.
Lumley, Capt. L. R.


Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.)
Emrys-Evans, P. V.
Mabane, W. (Huddersfield)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Errington, E.
MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G.


Balniel, Lord
Erskine Hill, A. G.
MacDonald, Rt. Hn. J. R. (Scot. U.)


Barris, Sir C. C.
Evans, E. (Univ. of Wales)
MacDonald, Rt. Hon. M. (Ross)


Baxter, A. Beverley
Findlay, Sir E.
Macdonald, Capt. P. (Isle of Wight)


Beauchamp, Sir B. C.
Fleming, E. L.
McEwen, Capt. J. H. F.


Beaumont, M. W. (Aylesbury)
Foot, D. M.
McKie, J. H.


Beaumont, Hon R. E. B. (Portsm'h)
Fraser, Capt. Sir I.
Makins, Brig.-Gen. E.


Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N.
Furness, S. N.
Manningham-Buller, Sir M.


Bernays, R. H.
Fyfe, D. P. M.
Margesson, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. D. R.


Blair, Sir R.
Ganzoni, Sir J.
Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J.


Blaker, Sir R.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir J.
Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth)


Bossom, A. C.
Gluckstein, L. H.
Mjils, Major J. D. (New Forest)


Boulton, W. W.
Glyn, Major Sir R. G. C.
Moore, Lieut.-Col. T. C. R.


Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart
Goldie, N. B.
Morgan, R. H.


Bower, Comdr. R. T.
Goodman, Col. A. W.
Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.
Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral)
Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.)


Braithwaite, Major A. N.
Granville, E. L.
Morrison, Rt. Hon. W. S. (Cir'nc'st'r)


Brass, Sir W.
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Muirhead, Lt.-Col. A. J.


Brocklebank, C. E. R.
Gridley, Sir A. B.
Munro, P.


Brown, Col. D. C. (Hexham)
Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.)
Nall, Sir J.


Brown, Rt. Hon. E. (Leith)
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. (Drake)
Neven-Spence, Maj. B. H. H.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury)
Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor)
Nicolson, Hon. H. G.


Bull, B. B.
Guy, J. C. M.
O'Neill, Major Rt. Hon. Sir Hugh


Burgin, Dr. E. L.
Hamilton. Sir G. C.
Orr.Ewing, I. L.


Burton, Col. H. W.
Hannah, I. C.
Palmer, G. E. H.


Butler, R. A.
Hannon, Sir P. J. H.
Patrick, C. M.


Campbell, Sir E. T.
Harris, Sir P. A.
Peake, O.


Cartland, J. R. H.
Harvey, Sir G.
Petherick, M.


Cary, R. A.
Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Castlereagh, Viscount
Haslam, Sir J. (Bolton)
Pilkington, R.


Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester)
Heligers, Captain F. F. A.
Plugge, L. F.


Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P.
Ponsonby, Col. C. E.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir A. (Br.W.)
Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan-
Porritt, R. W.


Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. N. (Edgb't'n)
Hepworth, J.
Pownall, Sir Assheton


Channon, H.
Herbert, A. P. (Oxford U.)
Raikes, H. V. A. M.


Choriton, A. E. L.
Hoare, Rt. Hon. Sir S.
Ramsay, Captain A. H. M.


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston S.
Holmes, J. S.
Ramsbotham, H.


Clarke. F. E.
Hope, Captain Hon. A. O. J.
Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)


Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead)
Hopkinson. A.
Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)


Clarry, Sir Reginald
Hore-Belisha, Rt. Hon. L.
Remer, J. R.


Colfox, Major W. P.
Howitt, Dr. A. B
Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)


Colville, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. D. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hack., N.)
Ross, Major Sir R. D (L'derry)


Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.)
Hudson. R. S. (Southport)
Rothschild, J. A. de


Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.)
Hulbert, N. J.
Russell, A. West (Tynemouth)


Craddock, Sir R. H.
Hume, Sir G. H
Salmon, Sir I.


Cranborne, Viscount
Hunter, T.
Samuel, Sir A. M. (Farnham)


Croft, Brig.-Gen. Sir H. Page
Hurd, Sir P. A.
Samuel, M. R. A. (Putney)


Crooke, J. S.
Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir T. W. H.
Sandeman, Sir N. S.


Cruddas, Col. B.
Jackson, Sir H.
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir P.


Culverwell, C. T.
Jarvis, Sir J. J.
Savery, Servington


Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil)
Jones, L. (Swansea, W.)
Scott, Lord William


Davison, Sir W. H.
Keeling, E. H.
Shakespeare, G. H.


De la Bère. R.
Kerr, J. Graham (Scottish Univs.)
Shaw, Major P. S. (Wavertree)


Denman, Hon. R. D.
Kimball, L.
Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)


Denville, Alfred
Knox, Major-General Sir A. W. F.
Simmonds, O. E.


Doland, G. F.
Lambert, Rt. Hon. G.
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir J. A.


Donner, P. W.
Leckie. J. A.
Sinclair, Rt. Hon. Sir A. (C'thn's)




Smiles, Lieut.-Colonel Sir W. D.
Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Wallace, Capt. Rt. Hon. Euan


Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Warrender, Sir V.


Smithers, Sir W.
Sutcliffe, H.
Waterhouse, Captain C.


Somerveli, Sir D. B. (Crewe)
Tanker, Sir R. I.
Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colunel G.


Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Tate, Mavis C.
Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl


Southby, Comdr. A. R. J.
Taylor, C. S. (Eastbourne)
Wise, A. R.


Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.
Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Wood. Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley


Spens, W. P.
Thomas, J. P. L. (Hereford)
Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Lord (Fyide)
Touche, G. C.
Young, A. S. L. (Partick)


Stanley, Rt. Hon. Oliver (W'm'I'd)
Tree, A. R. L. F.



Stewart, William J. (Belfast, S.)
Tryon, Major Rt. Hon. G. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Storey, S.
Turton, R. H.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert


Stourton, Major Hon. J. J.
Wakefield, W. W.
Ward and Sir George Penny.


Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Walker-Smith, Sir J.





NOES


Adams, D. (Consett)
Henderson, T. (Tradeston)
Richards, R. (Wrexham)


Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.)
Hicks, E. G.
Ritson, J.


Adamson, W. M.
Jenkins. A. (Pontypool)
Rowson, G.


Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'Isbr.)
John, W.
Salter, Dr. A.


Ammon, C. G.
Johnston, Rt. Hon. T.
Sanders, W. S.


Batey, J.
Jones, A. C. (Shipley)
Sexton, T. M.


Bellenger, F.
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Shinwell, E.


Benson, G.
Kelly, W. T.
Short, A.


Bevan, A.
Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T.
Smith, Ben (Rotherhithe)


Burke, W. A.
Kirby, B. V.
Smith, E. (Stoke)


Chater, D.
Lee, F.
Smith, Rt. Hon. H. B. Lees- (K'ly)


Cluse, W. S.
Leslie, J. R.
Stephen, C.


Cove, W. G.
Logan, D. G.
Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)


Daggar, G.
Macdonald. G. (Ince)
Taylor, R. J. (Morpeth)


Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton)
McEntee, V. La T.
Thorne, W.


Day, H.
Mac Laren, A.
Thurtie, E.


Dobble, W.
Maclean, N.
Tinker, J. J.


Ede, J. C.
MacNeill, Weir, L.
Viant, S. P.


Edwards, A. (Middlesbrough E.)
Mainwaring, W. H.
Whiteley, W.


Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwelity)
Mothers, G.
Wilkinson, Ellen


Gallacher, W.
Messer, F.
Williams, E. J. (Ogmore)


Gardner, B. W.
Montague, F.
Williams, T. (Don Valley)


Green, W. H. (Deptford)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wilson. C. H. (Attercliffe)


Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth)
Noel-Baker, P. J.
Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)


Griffiths, J. (Llanelly)
Paling, W.
Young, Sir R. (Newton)


Hall, G. H. (Aberdare)
Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.



Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel)
Pritt, D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Mr. Charleton and Mr. Groves.


Resolution agreed to.

Orders of the Day — PUBLIC ORDER BILL.

Considered in Committee.

[Sir DENNIS HERBERT in the Chair.]

3.57 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, to leave out "in any public place or."
The House showed last Monday that it was in agreement with the Government's plan to make the wearing of a uniform illegal. My object in moving the Amendment is to confine the prohibition to where political uniforms would be dangerous. If the Amendment be accepted, public meetings will be free of political uniforms while, by Clause 3, processions can be made free from them by banning. It is going too far to say that the wearing of a political uniform in any public place should be an offence. I told the House last Monday that we may, at the moment, wear anything, as long as it is not indecent or female, and, before we widen the scope of what is illegal, we must be very careful. It is dangerous to make an opinion something that can be followed by criminal proceedings.
The Socialist party are very keen to ban all uniforms, but they are among the first to object to any law to create that class of political offender in our prisons which this Clause will do a great deal to create, if passed unamended. What does it matter what you wear? We all come in here in drab, rather uniform, clothes, expressing our own drab and rather uniform points of view. If someone goes a little further and wears a tie or a shirt of a different sort and puts forward a different point of view, is he to be dubbed a criminal? That is the question which the Committee have to decide here and now. I know there is a great deal of feeling against Sir Oswald Mosley's group—little group—of Fascists, but I would remind the Committee that they are not the only group of people who are likely to be affected by the Clause.
There are, for instance, the Greenshirts. I have no sympathy with, and I am afraid

very little knowledge of, the Greenshirts. They seem to me to be a law-abiding lot of people, who march about in green shirts. I can conceive that they might cause fear and anxiety when they march in a procession or are at a public meeting, but why, when they walk out of their houses into the street, wearing green shirts, should they be in fear of the learned Attorney-General, who might come round a corner and institute proceedings against them? I do not think there is any justification at the moment for putting in the words "in any public place." I know that last Monday the Attorney-General poured scorn on me by saying that I had not the intimate knowledge of the Fascist movement that he and the Government had; but I have taken the trouble to see what is happening in the East End and to watch the antics of Sir Oswald Mosley throughout the country, and I do feel that in this Clause the Government are striking at a lot of people who are quite inoffensive and whom it is quite unnecessary to brand as criminals.
I ask the Home Secretary what he is going to do to all those ladies who wear black blouses to show that they have a certain amount of affection for Sir Oswald Mosley. Is that wearing of black blouses to be an offence? The blouses are part of the Fascist uniform. The men wear their more military garb, but the ladies turn out in black blouses. I feel that we must walk very warily and that the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General have given us no reason for condemning the wearing of these political uniforms "in any public place," whatever he may mean by that. I am ready to admit that the right hon. Gentleman proved his case in regard to any public meeting, and I for one, and others with me, will support any method he wishes to adopt to suppress the wearing of uniforms in processions.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: I wish to support the Amendment. I see that later on there is an Amendment on the Paper to leave out, on page 1, lines 11–18 of this Clause. I want to put a case which I hope the Home Secretary will take seriously, and that is that the Scottish people are getting a bit tired of the way in which the advanced part of Scotland is being dragged by the Tory stupidity


of England. These Scotsmen are hoping to go in for a great campaign for Scottish Home Rule, which will necessarily involve the wearing of the Scottish national costume at public meetings. I can well see the Lord President attending one of those meetings, with that great amount of patriotism of which he is capable, and possibly being apprehended as going beyond the limits.

Mr. McKIE: Is not the question of the kilt fully safeguarded by legislation passed at the end of the eighteenth century?

Mr. MacLAREN: No. This Clause refers to a uniform signifying association with any political organisation. If there is anything a Scotsman likes to do south of the Tweed it is to wear a kilt.

Mr. McKIE: That has no connection with Home Rule for Scotland.

Mr. MacLAREN: If there is any seriousness behind this proposal it will mean that innocent individuals will be included here and be deemed guilty of a criminal act. But surely that is not the intention. We know the intention behind the Bill.

4.6 p.m.

The SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Sir John Simon): My hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was good enough to say he was satisfied that the provisions of this Clause were justified so far as any public meeting was concerned. I do not think we shall have any difficulty in showing that, if we accept the provision that political uniforms should be prohibited from being worn at any public meeting, we prohibit them in any public place, for how exactly the gentleman in question is going to get to the public meeting without going to a public place I do not know. Apart from that, the view which has been put forward by those who really have looked into this matter is a very definite one, that the injury we are seeking to prevent is an injury which is inflicted in a public place apart altogether from any person actually being present at a public meeting. That is the view of those who speak with special knowledge of the East End of London. It is the view of the Manchester Corporation, representatives of which came specially to see me at the

Home Office, that the wearing of political uniforms has a definitely provocative effect in certain areas, apart from the question of whether the individual at the moment is at a public meeting.
I am sure that my hon. Friend with his usual candour will consider whether the concession which he proposes to make is not, perhaps, one which would be carried further. He is conscious of the fact that he could hardly stop at his suggestion, because he argued that the wearing of a political uniform in a procession, which is obviously one of the plain instances of provocative wearing of a political uniform, is to be dealt with under another Clause. I ask the Committee to say that in the case of public processions no less than in the case of public meetings the principle that we are applying should prevail. I think it will be found that much the most effective way of doing this is to provide that political uniforms shall not be worn in any public place. In reply to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) I shall continue to the end to declare that it is impossible to regard a national costume as signifying merely association with a political object.

Mr. PRITT: On behalf of the Opposition I beg to say that we agree with the Home Secretary and the reasons he has given for opposing the Amendment.

4.9 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I wish to support the Amendment, which I think would help to cure the ineffectiveness of the Clause. I listened very attentively last Monday when the Home Secretary spoke about uniforms and when he rather gave us to understand that he had the best brains in his Department attempting to define what was a political uniform. That being so, and now that we know that it seems impossible for his Department to define what this thing is, here we are wasting our time discussing a Clause that is to contain something that cannot be defined. I can see the effect of this 12 months from now. The responsibility for deciding in the first instance what is a political uniform will devolve on the police. We shall have the rather curious instance of a police officer bringing into court some poor wretch wearing perhaps a pink shirt, and then being asked by the magistrate, "What is a political uniform" We have had instances of


High Court judges asking such questions as, "What is a jumper?" Before we can seriously consider this Clause at all we should know at least what the Home Secretary himself thinks that a political uniform is. Otherwise I shall be driven to the conclusion that was put forward last Monday by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser), that the real reason for this Clause is to suppress the Fascists, although the Clause merely refers to political uniforms.

Colonel Sir CHARLES MacANDREW: On a point of Order. Is not the hon. and learned Member now going far beyond the Amendment and discussing the Clause?

The CHAIRMAN: I was about to suggest to the hon. and learned Member that if he looked at the Order Paper he would see an Amendment further down, upon which it would be more suitable to discuss the point that he wishes to raise.

Mr. FLEMING: I was taking this, the first opportunity, of raising my point, as we are discussing the Clause in which the words "political uniform" come in.

The CHAIRMAN: No, we are not discussing the Clause, but are discussing a specific Amendment.

Mr. FLEMING: I thought the Amendment referred to the Clause and not merely to the line in which it occurs. I shall, however, reserve my remarks to a later stage.

Mr. TURTON: In view of the statement of the Home Secretary I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

4.13 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I beg to move, in page 1, line 7, after "wears" to insert "military or quasi-military".
This is a far more important Amendment. I am trying to find out what the courts will interpret as the meaning of the word "uniform." I am certain that those of us who are trying to deal with this Clause have an idea of a political uniform that would be killed by my words "military or quasi-military." A few minutes ago the Home Secretary said that he was not striking at a national dress. Although I do not know whether

a kilt will be regarded as military or quasi-military uniform, I do feel that it is desirable to limit the words here regarding political uniforms. The dictionaries give "uniform" a very wide meaning. They make it "The dress of a particular style or fashion worn by persons of the same service, order or the like, by means of which they have a distinctive appearance." That goes very far. Remember that in this Bill we are framing a new law, a very strange law, a complete innovation, and it does not rest with us to say that the courts will find a way of getting out of the difficulty. We must show what precision we can. I suggest that we ought to define uniformity of dress as something which is either military or quasi-military in appearance. I use the word "quasi" for which I apologise. I do not like it, but I have noticed that hon. Members on both sides last Monday were apt to slip into that expression. As it was used by them they can hardly object to it to-day. For these reasons I ask that there should be some limitation of the word "uniform."
If the Home Secretary replies that, although he agrees with my main argument, he does not agree with the particular phrase I have suggested, I will withdraw my words and insert any words having the same intention that the legal advisers of the Government can devise. I do not think that the words "political uniform" are sufficient. They would merely apply to all people who dress alike, without distinction as to whether the dress itself is of a provocative nature or not. I would remind the Committee that other countries have taken the trouble to deal with this question. Sweden has gone a long way—far further than we are trying to go to-day. According to my information about what has happened in Sweden, they have not met with any startling success. They have gone further than uniforms, by including armlets or badges of a political nature, and I think it would be unwise for us to try to follow them at the moment. What we want to do is to prohibit people from having private armies, as is done in Clause 2 of the Bill, or dressing in such a way as to provoke enmity, which must be of a military character. For these reasons I ask the Committee to consider the insertion of these words.

4.17 p.m.

Sir ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL: My hon. Friend asks us to define, with what precision we can, the word "uniform." He has apologised for the phrase "quasi-military," and, indeed, whatever my hon. Friend's object may be, the word "quasi" would destroy any chance of his Amendment achieving that object; it would make confusion worse confounded. I would ask my hon. Friend to consider for a moment what the word "quasi" means as applied to a military uniform. If we are to have an Amendment to define what is meant by a uniform, let us have it in such a form as to do so with precision.

4.18 p.m.

Mr. PETHERICK: I say frankly that I do not like this Clause as it is drafted from beginning to end, but I would like to support the Amendment. I do not think, however, if I may say so with all respect to my hon. Friend, that the words he suggests are quite satisfactory; I should prefer some such words as "military or of a military aspect." It is only comparatively recently—within the last 100 years or so—that uniforms, even those of the British Army, have become completely uniform. In the old days, when the Statutes against liveries were imposed, the Star Chamber was introduced for dealing with abuses, and I think it is only some body like a Star Chamber at the present time that would really be able to interpret the law which we are proposing to pass, and not only to interpret it, but to make sure that the people against whom I understand the law is aimed are really brought within it. It seems to me that the definition of the word "uniform" is so vague and wide that it would be easy to evade it. Presumably a uniform means something that is really uniform. Supposing that Sir Oswald Mosley or other people who wear black shirts chose to put frogs or facings on them, so that, although the general tendency was the same, they were not all alike, it seems to me that the courts might well hold that no offence was committed under the Act. Therefore, I would ask my right hon. Friend to reconsider this question, at any rate between now and Report, and see if he cannot introduce some fairly precise definition which will really only affect those people whom

he is anxious should be affected by the Bill.

4.20 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I support the Amendment because it gives me an opportunity of speaking about the phrase "political uniform," and not because I think the addition suggested by my hon. Friend will clarify the meaning of the term. It may, however, be of some use, because the mere words "political uniform" would include almost any type of dress that is at present worn by members of societies having political objects in view. For instance, in the summer time in London one sees young men dressed in black shirts more of the style of "gym" sweaters, with grey flannel "slacks." Is that a political uniform? Undoubtedly it could be considered to be a political uniform, by some magistrates I know. On the other hand, I have seen these young men dressed in a style which I should call a quasi-military uniform, for, with all respect to the hon. Baronet the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel), the phrase "quasi-military" does convey a great deal to my mind. To me it signifies an imitation of a military uniform, and I think, myself, that that quasi-military uniform irritates the public more than the quasi-gymnastic uniform which I have seen these young men wearing in the summer time.
I think it would be advisable if the Home Secretary, before Report, would give us some definition of what he understands by a political uniform, because otherwise we shall have difficulties throughout the country. You will have a magistrate in Manchester, when one of my Fascist friends is brought before him—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]—Oh, yes, I have plenty of friends among the Fascists. Four years ago they were largely Conservatives; some were Labour men, some Communists. If any of these young men are brought before the Manchester magistrates, and it is left to them to define what is a political uniform, I can imagine some rather curious definitions coming from the bench. On the other hand if Fascists were brought up before the magistrates at, say, Bolton, I can see an entirely different definition being put forward from that bench. At present the Bill gives no guidance at all on the matter.
Last Monday the Attorney-General said glibly that it was much better for the court to be left to define this phrase. That may be so, and I would not mind if the court, and particularly the High Court judges, were the first people to handle the matter, but the first people to handle it will be the police. We shall have the police putting forward their construction of this term "political uniform," then the magistrates, then the High Court, then the Court of Appeal, and then the House of Lords. Why put these people to all this expense? If they are looked upon as deadly enemies, why not do as the hon. Member for Lichfield (Mr. Lovat-Fraser) has suggested, namely, bring in a Bill to crush them entirely as a political organisation, and not bother about the political uniform? It would be far fairer to do that, because I gather from what was said last Monday night, when I tried to get a word in but could not, that the real object of Clause 1, as far as some Members of the House thought, was to crush the Fascists.

The CHAIRMAN: I must again remind the hon. and learned Member that we are not yet discussing Clause 1.

Mr. FLEMING: I am obliged, Sir Dennis. I was trying to get at the intention behind Clause 1, and, of course, the Amendment, which I support, because, if the House does not really know what is the intention of Amendments and of the Clause, and if we do not know the meaning of the words "political uniform," I submit that we should be spending our time far better in discussing something that we do understand, such as unemployment. We none of us quibble about that term; we know what it means; but, according to the Home Secretary, no one on the Front Government Bench can give us a definition of what is meant by a political uniform. I support the Amendment because, although I do not think it will clarify the meaning to us—that is impossible, because we do not know what the Front Bench means by that phrase—at any rate it will give us a chance of getting at the intention of the Clause when we see whether the Government accept the Amendment or not.

4.27 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Donald Somervell): I always forget who it was who said that, although he was

unable to define a certain object, he always knew one when he saw one. I think he was referring to an elephant. No doubt there are many objects which it would be difficult for most of us to define, but which on the whole we find easy to recognise when we see them. I would suggest at the outset, with all respect to the arguments which have been advanced in favour of this Amendment, that it will not help to get over any difficulty. I cannot really think that either the police or a court would find it any easier to say what was a quasi-military or a military aspect than it would be to say what was a political uniform. I am not sure that it applies to my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), but I think it is perhaps not unfair to say that most of those who have spoken in favour of the Amendment dislike Clause 1 altogether. On the other hand, I think the Committee as a whole wants Clause 1, but of course we are all anxious to see that it is drafted in the fairest and most effective way that is possible. I suggest to the Committee that it would be unwise to accept this Amendment and restrict the scope of the Clause to military or quasi-military uniforms, whatever precisely those words may mean. The nature of the offence at which the Clause is directed is well known to every Member of the Committee, but to put in words like these would at once invite those who wish to defeat the intentions of Parliament, as expressed in this Clause, to adopt some form of dress which would have all the evils against which the Clause is directed, but which they might be able quite definitely to show that no one could suggest was a military or quasi-military uniform. Some of the forms of uniform which we have seen, and against which the Clause is directed, would not, I think, come within the words "military or quasi-military." I would suggest that my hon. Friend should reconsider the matter, and I would also suggest to the Committee that they would be unwise to accept the Amendment.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Would the Attorney-General tell us, if a procession were passing through the streets every member wearing a red tie or blouse, whether that would constitute a political uniform?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I cannot conceive any court holding that a tie was


a uniform. A person would not go and put on a tie and come back and say, "I have just put on my uniform." I can imagine a blouse consistently worn in connection with political associations, possibly with a belt and other apparatus, coming exactly within the Clause. Of course, it is impossible to lay down a hard-and-fast rule as to exactly where garments begin and end.

4.31 p.m.

Mr. PICKTHORN: I am little disquieted by the last remarks that fell from the Attorney-General. One of my reasons for disapproving the Amendment is that the essence of militarism is not in the cut or the colour of the cloth, it is in a uniform garment being used for purposes of manoeuvre. I should suggest that that is exactly what it is the business of the courts to decide. Suppose it was arranged that 5,000 persons should all be in Hyde Park, each of them with a button badge twice the size of a 5s. piece in his pocket and, as the clock struck three, he was to fasten it to his coat, and the persons so recognising each other were to form themselves into platoons and behave in a quasi-military manner, I should have thought that was using a uniform with the intention of exhibiting man power, if not with the intention of exercising at least of threatening force, which is the kind of thing we are trying to get at. Those were, surely, the reasons for not defining uniform.

4.33 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: I should like to reinforce what my hon. Friend has said. I thought the word "uniform" signified uniform in its widest possible sense, that is to say, people dressed in a uniform way or with uniform characteristics. It does not matter whether it is a badge, a tie, a helmet, or a hat. It means that they are uniformly got up for the urging of a, particular kind of political policy. It would be very unfortunate if it were only people dressed in a military or quasi-military dress, which would hit only a very few of the persons the Bill is aimed at. The Clause should deal with people dressed in a uniform way which is easily distinguished for the purpose of putting forward a political policy.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: Surely in course of time we shall all know perfectly well whether

any particular combination of dress or one article of dress, or something else, signifies an association for political purposes. No prosecution, surely, will be undertaken unless there is a general feeling in the country that it is a definite political organisation which is identifiable to its members and the public by reason of some article or articles of dress. It may be that if the only thing were a tiny badge, the Attorney-General might hesitate before prosecuting, but if in fact they were really identifiable in all places and on all occasions, by the manner in which they dress, I cannot conceive that there would be any doubt in practice as to whether or not they were wearing uniforms signifying a political organisation. We all know what a uniform is, from that of a commissionaire, which, after all, is military or quasi-military, down to that of boy scouts, which is almost the least military of any in appearance. There is no doubt in our own minds, after having seen members of this organisation constantly and regularly in public places, that it is a uniform signifying certain associations. I cannot believe that in practice anything is to be gained by trying further to define uniforms. Let us leave it to the common sense of our people and to the wisdom of our Attorney-General as to when it is desirable to take action against the organisation that we are intending to hit by this Clause.

4.37 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I oppose the Amendment because it will not carry out the Mover's intention. He seems to imagine that a military or naval uniform is something in bright colours with buttons and so forth attaching to it, but the engineer's overall is the military uniform of one great nation. I am not very fond of the Bill because of the dangers attaching to it, but the hon. Member's suggestion will not carry out the idea that he has in mind or make the language more clear.

4.38 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: To my mind the defect of the Amendment is that it suffers from the same weakness as the original wording of the Clause, namely, that the term is too narrow. Whether the Amendment is carried or the Clause is left as it is, as there is no definition of uniform anywhere, the courts will have to take a common sense view of the meaning of the term, and I suggest that they will take


the view that the term "uniform" means a more or less complete outfit. I cannot conceive that the courts will hold that a single garment by itself constitutes a uniform. May I suggest that between now and Report the Home Secretary should consider if it is not possible to add something that will get over the difficulty. I had an Amendment on the Paper, and my idea was that any single garment or uniform should bring a person within the operation of the Clause. The Clause says that it must be a uniform, I suggest that there is a danger there. Take the example of the Blackshirt movement. They wear a more or less complete outfit which can be fairly described as a uniform. If in future they merely wear a black shirt, and otherwise wear diverse clothes, some flannels, others corduroys and so on, it is most improbable that any court will hold that they are wearing a uniform. If I am right in that, the purpose that the Government, and I believe the House has will be defeated. I would ask the Home Secretary whether he will not undertake to give the matter further consideration.

4.41 p.m.

Sir R. W. SMITH: I am not particularly in favour of the Amendment, but the discussion has raised difficulties in my mind as to what the position will be. We are aiming at the prohibition of the organisation of bodies which seek to use force for their political ends. I should have thought that grey flannels and a black shirt might be held to be a uniform, but what is to hinder those gentlemen from wearing, instead of that dress, a small figure in their buttonhole in grey flannels and a black shirt. It will be themselves in miniature. The Clause reads
uniform signifying association with any political organisation or with
the promotion of any political object.
Therefore, when we come to an election and I happen to wear a badge of my own colours, I shall be wearing the uniform of a political organisation and be liable to be proceeded against. It seems to me that the essence of the matter is the intention to use physical force.

4.43 p.m.

Mr. MacLAREN: We know exactly what we want to get at, and we had better put it in the Clause. The hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr.

Pickthorn) put his finger on the point when he said it is the intention of the wearer of a given uniform that should be taken into account, but that is not expressed in the Clause. The Attorney-General pointed out that a red tie would not be deemed to be a uniform, which raises another point, that a uniform not only has to be uniformly worn but has to have a certain capacity of covering, it may be two-fourths or three-fourths of the body. This is only an indication of the mess that we are getting into. I do not think the Amendment would meet the point, but after this discussion the duty of doing something to meet the wishes of the Committee rests with the Home Secretary. Look at the words again
uniform signifying association with any political organisation.
There is no reference to the intentions of the wearer. Suppose there were a number of gentlemen walking down the street wearing silk hats, white spats and monocles, and I said to some navvies, "Who do you think they are, and to what type of meeting do you think they are going?" what would they answer? We cannot disguise in this Amendment or in this Clause the intention of the wearers of uniform. Men uniformly dressed in this manner would come under this Clause. They would be associated with a particular political association, or the dress they wore would signify their political association. The wording of the Amendment does not meet the point. It must be clear to the Home Secretary and the promoters of the Bill that, while the majority of the Members of this House are anxious to do something to preserve constitutional methods at elections, it is essential that some other wording should be introduced by the Home Secretary to give a clear definition of what is meant. At present it is so wide that it might be possible to bring within the scope and operation of the Bill people who had no bad intention at all against the State. The right hon. Gentleman should really take the matter into account and see if some suitable wording cannot be embodied in the Clause.

4.47 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The issue raised in the Amendment, as the Committee realise, is whether the words "military or quasi-military" should be inserted. I really think, with all respect to my hon. Friend who raised the point by moving the


Amendment, that the sense of the Committee is that these words should not be inserted. I fully appreciate the point made by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and other hon. Gentlemen and the various illustrations they have given, but it is by no means a new consideration for me or those acting with me. We have considered this matter from the beginning, and I would like the Committee to realise that this matter goes beyond the scope of Clause 1, Clause 2 is directed to the purpose which certain organisations are seeking to carry out. That is the question of purpose. Clause 1, I agree, does not raise the question of purpose, except very incidentally, but of costume. In itself and by itself that may not involve purpose, but as a practical matter we have suggested—and I think that it is the general view of the Committee—that Clause 1 ought not to contain any definition of uniform. When we come to a subsequent Amendment in which someone is proposing to insert emblem, election favour, or Primrose League badge, I shall have something to say. I do not think any such person would regard an emblem or Primrose League badge or trade union badge as uniform. Had we not better deal with that matter when it is definitely before us, because I think that on this question of whether we shall insert "military or quasi-military" we are practically unanimous.

Sir IRVING ALBERY: In view of what the right hon. Member has said, may I ask you, Sir Dennis, whether the next Amendment dealing with emblems will be called?

The CHAIRMAN: I do not propose to call the next Amendment on the Order Paper—in page 1, line 8, after "uniform," to insert "or displayed emblems"—but to select the Amendment which follows. The question of emblems can be raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part."

Amendment negatived.

4.50 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 8, after "uniform," to insert
or carries a flag or banner bearing a provocative device or inscription.

If these words were inserted in the Clause it would read:
Subject as hereinafter provided, any person who in any public place or at any public meeting wears uniform or carries a flag or banner bearing a provocative device or inscription signifying association with any political organisation.'
There are many of us who feel considerable regret that things in this country should have made it necessary for the Government to introduce this Bill. We recognise its necessity and are prepared to support the Government to the fullest extent. It would, in our opinion, do less than good however to pass a Bill which might perhaps deal with one or two provocative features of the situation and let others go unscathed. It is our contention that in the organisation of forces, whether military or civil, the carrying of a flag, both in history and in present day fact, has as much, if not greater, significance than the actual wearing of a uniform. From the earliest times the focus of emotion and of esprit de corps, the rallying of the co-ordinated human effort in a struggle has been a flag. If we are to allow bodies to march through the streets, even if they are not allowed to wear uniforms—we understand they may all wear the same tie—carrying flags, procreative of disorder, we shall have only achieved part of the objective of this Bill. The objects of the Bill, as I understand it, are, first, to prevent the organisation of force and the building up of civil communities which are formed for violence when the time comes. That is one object. The next object is to prevent open provocation. The wearing of uniforms makes it much easier to train a civil body as if it were a military force, but as far as provocation is concerned, the marching of such a body, either uniformed or un-uniformed with banners through the street is equally provocative in either case.
We have been careful in drawing up this Amendment. We might have put in the words "carrying a black flag or a red flag in the streets," but we have been careful to word the Amendment so as to be as restrained as possible. Although to some of us the Red Flag may have unpleasant associations, at least a certain air of respectability has been cast over it by the mantle of protection which our hon. Friends opposite extend to it.


It is concerned in our minds here with such pleasant recollections as having heard two verses of the Red Flag song sung to us by the party opposite in such a manner as to suggest a meeting of the Salvation Army. All the same, the Red Flag is objectionable to many people who have heard the speeches made in the park, as I have heard them. I remember the last particular speech I heard. The speaker told the audience that he was a general in the Communist army and that neither Mr. Lloyd George, Mr. Chamberlain nor any of the other people on the Front Bench liked him very much, and they were quite right, because he would cut their throats when his time came. In spite of that sort of thing, I and my hon. Friends have refrained from putting in the words "Red Flag"; we have put in "flag or banner bearing a provocative device or inscription." We have only to look around Europe to see the use which dictators of one side or the other have made of flags, and what chance the opposite side to these dictators would have of raising one of their flags or banners. We must realise that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. We have seen how it has been possible to arouse Germans, Italians and Russians to follow flags, and the danger is that you might arouse a few foolish Scotsmen and Englishmen to do the same.

Mr. JAMES GRIFFITHS: And Welshmen.

Captain RAMSAY: I am sorry I forgot the Welsh. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary mentioned the subject of banners but only in a sort of backstairs way, when talking about Clause 3. I quote his words. He said:
a provision is expressly included in Subsection (1) as to the possibility. of conditions being imposed…. Sometimes there are cases in which the requirement might be with reference, say, to provocative inscriptions on banners."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1936; col. 1360, Vol. 317.]
This issue is fundamental to the whole subject. It is no place for the Home Secretary to tuck it away with a side reference to a Sub-section in a paragraph which does not even mention the word "banner," and shirk the responsibility by putting the interpretation of this fundamental Clause on to the police or magistrates who may have to deal with

the situation. We all know the impulse which we receive from a procession marching through the street, whether it bears a banner of which we approve or whether it bears one of which we disapprove. We all know how provocative it is even when Harrovians hoist a dark blue flag in an Etonian stand at the Eton v. Harrow match, especially at a critical point in the game. Does anyone suppose that the police in India would allow a Mohammedan procession bearing Mohammedan banners to march through the Hindu quarter? Does anyone suppose that a procession of Orangemen marching through a Roman Catholic quarter would be likely to have a peaceful reception because it only carried flags? This is a point which we have to face. I am sorry that the Government have not put it actually in the wording of the Clause. We think that they have shirked the issue, and we hope that between now and the Report stage they will put in some words to cover a provocative inscription or device carried in a public procession through the streets.

4.59 p.m.

Mr. LOGAN: I am not in agreement with the Amendment because I do not think that it would be of any benefit. Apart from any discussion which may have occurred in this House, and whether it concerned Roman Catholics or Orangemen or anyone else, a disturbance of the public peace should be avoided. Every citizen has a duty to see that the public receive the fullest protection. The hon. and gallant Gentleman referred to Orangemen passing through a Catholic quarter carrying banners. As far as I know Liverpool, he would not say that it was only a procession passing through; there would be no banners left. If people had not the common sense to know that they were hurting the feelings of people in a particular neighbourhood by doing that, they would be taught a lesson and would not go again. There would be no need for an Act of Parliament to teach them.
We are dealing in this Clause with the question of uniforms and not banners. There are certain banners that may cause difficulty in certain quarters. On the other hand, there are some banners which may be of an exhilarating character. Who shall
judge? Is it to be left to an old fogey


sitting somewhere, who may rouse himself from sleep and form the idea that a certain banner would incite the public? Another man might take a different view. There are, of course, all types of banners. Who is to decide the question of what is hostile under this Amendment? There are certain banners and devices that we use during the election, such as: "Down with the Tory Government"; "Down with the National Government"; "We want bread, not stones." I suppose that if we carried banners of that description some respectable people under the terms of this Amendment would say that they were provocative. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] But in the mind of a magistrate we might be held to be inciting the people to riot.
If it is difficult to define uniforms, it will be equally if not more difficult to define what is a provocative banner. I am anxious not to reduce the Bill to a farce. There is, for instance, the hammer and sickle on the banner of the party of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher). I see no harm in that, but if the sickle was held in somebody's hand and it might be used, that would be another matter. I do not think that, without injustice to the parties concerned, we can attempt to lay down the principle involved in the Amendment. We might be denying to people at election time and at political meetings a great deal of fun and diversion if we leave them without a banner, without the attendant enthusiasm and without the little bit of drama that now and again can be introduced into public life. I am opposed to the Amendment.

5.4 p.m.

Commander BOWER: I support the Amendment because I think there is some danger that this Bill, and particularly this Clause, may become particular legislation instead of general. I hold no brief for Sir Oswald Mosley or his Fascists. I dislike them almost as much as I dislike the party of the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher).

Mr. GALLACHER: But not quite.

Commander BOWER: Not quite. I cannot see why Sir Oswald Mosley and his friends should be specially selected for attention because they parade in the

East End of London and do what the hon. Member and his friends are doing in the West End. We are told that it is provocative for Sir Oswald Mosley and his Blackshirts to march through the East End. What happens? Owing to the fact that there are a large number of Oriental races who live in that area they find it necessary to provoke and assault the police. We in the West End do not find it necessary to assault the police when these processions march through, but it is a mistake to think that we are not just as much provoked. We are, however, law-abiding citizens.
A few weeks ago I was driving my car through the West End on a Sunday evening and was held up for about 10 minutes and prevented from crossing Piccadilly because of a Communist procession which was carrying banners with such devices as "Down with British Imperialism." We happen to be an Imperial race and doubtless some hon. Members opposite think that we are, and they are as responsible for its maintenance as we are. The kind of banner to which I have referred is as provocative as Mosley's Blackshirts in the East End to their opponents. I see no reason why Sir Oswald Mosley should be specially singled out, and many of us on this side hope that the Government will see to it that if the Fascists are to be attacked in this particular way that other nuisances of a like character will: also be attacked. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will carry the Amendment to a Division.

5.8 p.m.

Mr. DINGLE FOOT: I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment, because it seems to me that the general principle on which we ought to proceed is to do the very minimum which is necessary to accomplish the purpose which we have in mind. We are bringing in a Bill which imposes certain restrictions. Nobody likes to impose these restrictions for their own sake. We do it only because we have to meet a particular situation which has arisen in a few parts of the country. In doing that we ought to interfere as little as we possibly can with the ordinary traditional way of carrying on political propaganda in this country. The organising of processions and the carrying of banners and flags have happened in this country in political affairs


for very many years. We can all imagine banners which indicate some association with a political or quasi-political organisation and which carry some emblem, or device, or some form of words. There is, for instance, a banner bearing the initials "N.U.W.M." and with the words "Down with the Means Test." That might be regarded as provocative, but do not let us get into a position in these debates in which we say that it is an offence to be provocative. We all of us, I hope, are provocative at election times. I try to be provocative to my political opponents, and I hope I succeed, and I hope that other hon. Members do so. If it is to be regarded as an offence simply to be provocative, that is something that we do in this House every day.
It seems to me that the Amendment would not meet the purpose that the hon. and gallant Member who moved it has in mind. The Amendment makes it an offence to carry a flag or banner bearing a provocative device or description signifying association with any political organisation. That would still leave it open to carry a red flag or a black flag. It seems to me that it is no more an offence to carry a flag with some emblem like the Swastika or the Hammer and Sickle than to carry a banner of a particular colour which has an association with a particular party. By passing the Amendment we should not be hitting particularly at one side or the other. If the Bill remains as it is it means that we simply deal with uniforms, which is all that the Bill set out to do, and we leave it open to the Fascists or the Communists or any other political party to carry such banners or emblems as they please. There is no question of drawing a distinction between one party and another.

5.12 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I should like to state briefly to the Committee the way in which the Government regard this question. It is a much more important question than the incidental matter that we were discussing before. If it were the case that this Bill as a whole made no provision which would enable the law, where necessary, to put down definite provocation in a neighbourhood, which might be reasonably expected from some grossly insulting device, then I should feel that the Amendment was justifiable, but we must look at the Bill as a whole, and the question is

whether this Clause, which is a uniforms Clause, is the vehicle for subject-matter such as the Mover of the Amendment wishes to insert. I would ask the hon. and gallant Member to observe where this subject-matter might naturally come in.
I agree that it is a perfectly legitimate question to raise in connection with this Bill, and the last thing I want to do, or that any reasonably-minded person wants to do, is to make this a merely one-sided Bill. Let us look at Clause 3. I was struck with the fact that the hon. and gallant Member in moving the Amendment explained in simple phrases what he had in mind, and he referred to processions. He talked about people marching through the streets carrying provocative banners. He referred to processions in India and to Orange processions. It is in connection with processions that this question arises, whatever may be the right way of dealing with it. The Clause which deals with processions is not Clause 1 but Clause 3. Therefore it was not with any desire, as the hon. and gallant Member said, of putting the subject away—he even used the words "shirking responsibility"—that I referred to it in connection with Clause 3, because it is in Clause 3 that this question might arise. In Clause 3 we provide that for the preservation of public order on the occasion of processions the chief officer of police may
give directions imposing upon the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order.
Therefore, I think I was perfectly right when I said that Clause 3 was the place on which this question might conceivably arise. I cannot imagine that there is a better place than that.

Captain RAMSAY: The reason why we want this provision inserted in Clause 1 is that we want to preclude the holding of demonstrations with this sort of flag flying. We say that they are an incitement to people to rush at the flags and to pull them down.

Sir J. SIMON: The question of processions and flags and banners arises in Clause 5. It says:
Any person who in any public place or at any public meeting uses threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with intent to provoke a breach of the peace or whereby a breach of the peace is likely to be occasioned.


That, I think, would cover such behaviour as the use of provocative banners. But I do not think we should take Clause 1, which is the uniforms Clause, and completely change its application and aspect. There is a great distinction, after all, in the use of uniforms in our political life and the use of banners. The use of uniforms is a new thing, and we want, if we can, to put a stop to it. That, I think, is the general sentiment of the Committee. It does not proceed from any objection to any political organisation from which we may differ, but from the feeling that our political activities are much better carried on in the character of civilians and not in anything like an army organisation. When we come to banners, I am not denying that there may be cases where banners may be so provocative as to produce outbreaks. I do not know. I have not often seen such a case. I believe the red flag is nothing but red, there is no writing on it. It would not drive me into a passion; nor would any other colour.
After all, banners are in a different category and are rather an old-established method in which British political enthusiasm has been exhibited. If you have a case where those responsible say that a procession through the streets with these banners and inscriptions would produce a breach of the peace, I am entirely in favour of giving the proper authority power to prevent that happening. But this matter is involved in Clause 3, and I would suggest to the hon. and gallant Member that when we come to that Clause we should consider whether it is not covered rather than introduce the question on Clause 1. I do not think we should try to deal with this matter on this Clause, the uniforms Clause, and I hope the hon and gallant Member will agree to consider it in connection with Clause 3.

Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS: May I point out that the Amendment as it has been drafted would apply only to the person who wears a uniform or carries a, flag or banner bearing a provocative device or inscription.

Sir J. SIMON: That is so. I did not want to confuse matters by taking a purely verbal point, but the Amendment as it is drafted, obviously, will not do, and I suggest that we should regard this

matter as one which arises more naturally under Clause 3. It would be a mistake to try and make it part of the general provisions of the Bill.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to make it clear in the first place that the Communist party is no military organisation; it does not train its members under any system of physical training, and in no circumstances does it tolerate any of its members carrying weapons. An hon. Member spoke about someone being a general of the Communist army. He was a general without an army, and if the hon. Member could bring me into contact with him I would not do with him as the hon. Member proposed to do—I would not cut his throat—I would just pass him on to the Home Secretary for medical treatment, inspection and observation—perhaps I should have said the Minister of Health. I am not much concerned about the attitude of hon. Members opposite and the intolerable absurdities they have presented to the Committee; but their presumption—that is a different thing. We want to make processions and demonstrations, for the purpose of provoking the people of this country, of arousing and provoking them to the terrible condition of the masses of the people. We have had hunger marches in the West End for political purposes. If the hon. and gallant Member is driving down in his car and a number of his friends are gathered there and they are provoked, they do not like it, and say so. How would they like the chief of police to come along and push them about and say that they have no right to dislike the procession?

The CHAIRMAN: I have been waiting for the hon. Member to come to the subject of the Amendment.

Mr. GALLACHER: I am talking about the provocation of processions.

The CHAIRMAN: Provoking processions are not in the Amendment.

Mr. GALLACHER: I am talking about processions carrying certain banners with certain writings on them which provoke hon. Members opposite. If they expressed their provocation and the police started knocking them about they would have something more about which to be provoked. In the East End of London there has been processions with emblems


and banners directed as a deliberate provocation to racial feelings. That is something entirely different; and the police have been protecting these processions. An hon. Member talked about them being Orientals. They are British citizens, and as good British citizens as hon. Members opposite. There is no question of stopping banners and flags of a political character. That would bring us to a state which an hon. Member opposite desired. We do not in this country want to be treated in the same way as Indians have been treated. I want every liberty for the carrying of banners and provocative slogans, but anything which is deliberately offensive or insulting is entirely different. Already the police have power to deal with it, and their power could be strengthened if necessary. I have a proposal later on dealing with insulting and provocative language directed towards racial and religious sections of the community. The question of insulting and provocative language directed towards racial or religious bodies is something with which the police have power already to deal. In no circumstances should we limit our right to political provocation which has always been an essential feature of the life of this country.

5.27 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: The Home Secretary's statement would carry more weight with many hon. Members if he had added that he was prepared to accept the Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member for Paddington (Vice-Admiral Taylor) and myself, or a similar Amendment, when we come to Clause 3. The Home Secretary said nothing of that kind, and in default of some assurance that this matter, on which many of us feel strongly, will be dealt with by the Government in connection with Clause 3, I hope my hon. Friends will press the Amendment. I would point out that this is not a. uniforms Bill. It is a Public Order Bill.

Sir J. SIMON: I said that Clause 1 was the uniforms Clause.

Sir W. DAVISON: I am perfectly aware of that, but what I am pointing out is that this is not a uniforms Bill but a Public Order Bill and, therefore, it is desirable that the object of the Bill should be dealt with as soon as possible. The object of the Bill should not be interfered with by words which would

make it refer only to provocative uniforms. That is one reason why I rather dislike the Bill. It seems to be aimed at one political organisation and does not deal with other political organisations which are equally likely to cause disorder. The words in this Clause allow the wearing of uniforms, provided it is clear that they will not be likely to involve the risk of public disorder. It is clear that the object aimed at is the risk of public disorder. I understand that when this matter originally arose in the East End of London it was not the Fascists who caused breaches of the peace or attacked anyone, but the fact that their uniform was distasteful to a number of persons there and that breaches of order were thereby occasioned. Very likely that was the case.
I would like also to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that, as my hon. Friends have pointed out, it is not only uniforms that may cause public disorder. People going to attend a meeting and carrying flags or banners bearing devices or inscriptions may also be a cause of public disorder. The aim of this Bill is to prevent public disorder, and it is only in so far as uniforms are provocative and cause public disorder that there is any excuse for the Bill. Therefore, I think it is very desirable that something should be included as early as possible in the Bill to show that its object is not to prevent the wearing of uniforms, but to prevent any kind of costume, banner or emblem that is likely to cause public disorder, and if the Home Secretary will say that some suitable words will be inserted in Clause 3 to deal with processions, my objections would to that extent be met.

5.31 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: In reply to my hon. Friend, in referring to Clause 3, line 41, which reads:
such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order
I told the House on Second Reading that I thought this would include the making of conditions, if such conditions were necessary, to deal with banners. That is my view, and the view of the Attorney-General. I am willing to say now that I will have this examined, and if there is any doubt about it I will make it entirely plain. My hon. Friend will appreciate


that this does not mean there will be such a condition, but that it will be within the power of the local police, if they come to the conclusion that such conditions are necessary for the preservation of order, to make those conditions. I could not possibly go further than that. It has always been my intention that that should be done, and I believe it would be in the power of the London police to-day. I think the proper way to deal with the matter would be under Clause 3.

5.32 p.m.

Captain RAMSAY: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Mr. WISE: On a point of Order. Is it not permissible, under the Rules, to continue the discussion on the Amendment, as no closure has been moved.

The CHAIRMAN: I am afraid the hon. Member is too late.

Mr. WISE: I rose in an endeavour to continue the discussion.

The CHAIRMAN: Perhaps the hon. Member will remember another time to be quicker still.

5.33 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in page 1, to leave out lines 11 to 18.
I move this Amendment on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Mr. Lees-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clayton (Mr. Jagger). The lines in question are the proviso which detracts from the prohibition to wear uniforms in any public place or at any public meeting, and it reads as follows:
Provided that if the chief officer of police is satisfied that the wearing of any such uniform as aforesaid on any ceremonial, anniversary, or other occasion will not be likely to involve risk of public disorder, he may, with the consent of a Secretary of State, by order permit the wearing of such uniform on that occasion either absolutely or subject to such conditions as may be specified in the Order.
The attitude which I, in common with the bulk of hon. Members beside me, take with reference to this proviso—with reference, in short, to this Clause—is that we agree with the anxieties that

have been expressed by many hon. Members regarding any restriction of liberty, but we agree, as far as this part of the Bill is concerned, that at any rate some restriction of liberty is essential. After all, liberty consists in a sense of a series of minor restrictions on liberty. We recognise that the task of prohibiting uniforms has undesirable associations or undesirable results, we recognise that it is a difficult piece of work to do, and I think most hon. Members recognise that in the drafting of the main body of Subsection (1) that work has been done about as well as it could be done, but I Will give to the Committee our reasons for suggesting that the proviso would be much better omitted. Those reasons are small in themselves, but together, they amount, in our submission, to a substantial reason against the proviso.
First of all, one regrettable fact is that in this part of the Bill one knows one is dealing in the main, although not wholly, with one specific political organisation. Naturally, the Bill may be used in the case of any other similar organisation, but here we are dealing in the main with one organisation. We have seen the tendencies and habits of that organisation, and we may feel fairly certain that if this Bill becomes an Act, with this Sub-section and proviso in it, that organisation will, if I may so put it, ostentatiously keep its uniforms ready in the chest of drawers. It is not easy to do something negative ostentatiously, but obviously that is what that organisation will do. They will tell their followers to keep their uniforms nicely brushed because they may be wanted at any moment. The next thing they will do is to make insistent appeals from time to time and on occasion after occasion to the Secretary of State for permission to wear the uniforms. Those applications will be nicely graded, some of them being extremely reasonable and some of them border-line cases, so that the Secretary of State will have to draw a line somewhere. Wherever he may draw the line, they will select a most reasonable case that he has thought it right to refuse, and make a great deal of propaganda in the country against the restriction of liberty.
At some moment or other the Secretary of State will say that there is no reason


to prohibit the uniform, and will allow it to be worn. Then there will be immense propaganda and publicity; they will all be shouting, "Our uniform is going to be used to-morrow; rally round in your thousands to see it," and the result will be to create a tremendous amount of publicity for an organisation which lives largely on the publicity and provocation that it can create. All those things are extremely undesirable. If the proviso is really necessary to prevent the unnecessary restriction of movement of some body which, in this complex and varied community of Great Britain and Northern Ireland we have overlooked, we may, of course, trust the Home Secretary to tell us. I, for one, would be very glad if the proviso enabled the Green-shirts to continue their peaceful, if not very interesting, existence, but I do not think the proviso would save the Green-shirts. If we are right in thinking that it does not really help what I might call innocent, neutral or non-provocative bodies, we suggest that the Clause would be better, and that it would avoid a certain number of evils, if the proviso were deleted.

5.40 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: In my character as Secretary of State, I would like very much to accept the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The task involved by this proviso will riot be any fun to me, although I hope it will not be quite as bad as the hon. and learned Member suggested. Undoubtedly if there be a case which gains exemption for a ceremonial, anniversary or other occasion, under this proviso, it will only be because the Secretary of State consents. If he does consent, and there is not general approval, he may be certain that he will be challenged in the House; and if he does something of which some people approve and other people disapprove, he may be challenged just the same. Naturally, from my point of view, nothing would be more satisfactory and convenient than to accept the Amendment, but I will give the Committee the reason we included these words, and ask the Committee to consider it. As the hon. and learned Gentleman said, it is true that in framing this Clause and discussing it we are very largely preoccupied by thinking of a particular case, but it would be quite wrong, and contrary to the whole spirit of British law,

if we were to legislate for the purpose of penalising a particular case.
We have to find the principle, to lay it down, and to see that we apply to all cases which fall within the principle the rules that are laid down regarding it. That is the reason we put the uniforms Clause in what is a very general shape, but the very fact that we drafted it in such general terms makes the Legislature and the Committee anxious lest, without having reflected upon all possible applications, we may not have laid down a rule which when the occasion arises, everybody will see is a rule we ought not to have applied to such an instance. We have tried to limit that possibility by putting in the reference to the political character of the uniform. That is a limitation. To some extent also, there is a limitation in the reference to the consent of the Attorney-General. Now, one of the two things which political uniforms will include will be costumes "signifying association with any political organisation." Let me take the case of a trade union, for example. I think I am right in saying that in the old days there was a practice by which trade union regalia were used on more or less ceremonial occasions. I am not for a moment saying whether trade union regalia are or are not uniforms, and I do not intend to say that; but I do say that none of us really intends to interfere with a demonstration of that nature, and I think it would be very unfortunate if such a case were to be found hereafter to be caught under the cast-iron provisions of this sub-section when nobody had ever intended to interfere in such a case.
Let me give the House another instance. Certainly, it is not the Home Secretary who decides the point, but I can conceive the question arising in connection with the demonstrations that take place on 12th July. Frankly it is not the purpose of the Government here and now that nobody shall ever demonstrate on 12th July. That is a, proper case for police regulations, for making conditions, prescribing routes and doing other things that are designed to protect public order. But when we have anniversary or ceremonial occasions which we have gone through without too much trouble in the past, I do not think it is a good thing for Parliament to set up as a sort of supreme legislative governess and impose


cast-iron rules in regard to these matters. That is the reason why we have inserted this proviso. The Home Office officials would be delighted if the Committee threw it out. It would save them a good deal of anxious thought and the Home Secretary of the day would be happy to be relieved of this responsibility. The only reason why we put it in was because we thought that when we were laying down a new prohibition and saying to the British people, in a new connection, "Here is something which you shall not do," we ought to provide a certain latitude for those cases in which none of us, I am sure, really intend to apply a rigid rule.
I think the Amendment which stands later on the Paper in the name of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman)—in page 1, line 13, after "other" to insert "special"—is one which might be accepted by the Committee. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite would probably agree that that is already the effect of the proviso, but we might as well write it down, and that is the extent to which we think this proviso ought to be altered. If I have succeeded in conveying to the Committee the real reason why we put in this proviso, and if I have been so fortunate as to persuade them that there is ground for it, then I hope we shall be allowed to make further progress with the Bill.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: The explanation given by the Home Secretary suggests that it is going to be very comfortable and easy to operate this Clause. This proviso brings in the chief of police and I would point out that in many cases this will involve more than one chief of police. I saw in Lancashire yesterday a demonstration which passed through the areas of three police authorities. It passed through part of the area of the Lancashire County Constabulary, it passed through part of Salford—and I believe it had to be reorganised for its passage through Salford—and it then passed through part of Manchester. Are we then to have the spectacle of three chiefs of police being concerned in a matter of this kind and possibly differing between themselves as to whether or not they should approach the Home Secretary on the subject of the

wearing of uniforms on a particular occasion? The people to whom I refer were wearing uniforms. They were celebrating the anniversary of somebody who committed an illegal act many years ago, and I wondered, as I saw them, what would happen in a case where the three chief constables concerned were not agreed on the action to be taken in regard to a particular demonstration.
I think the police ought to be kept out of this matter of the granting or withholding of approval for the wearing of uniforms. The Metropolitan police were referred to by the Home Secretary as possessing certain powers. I know there is one power which they think they possess. They think they are a Government Department, but I hope that one of these days it will be made clear that they are just as much a local body of police as other forces in the country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] That, I hope, will be proved one of these days, although they appear to have made the impression on the minds of certain hon. Members that they are a Government Department and not a body of police. I would ask whether this proviso means that an organisation, such as a trade union for example, would have to seek permission for a demonstration at which certain uniforms were to be worn, and also what is to happen when such a demonstration passes through more than one police area? I hope that this Amendment will be pressed to a Division.

5.50 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I have heard the Home Secretary called many things in his time but I think this is the first occasion on which he has been accused of being a local authority, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will recover from it. Despite the views of the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Belly) I think it is the ease that the right hon. Gentleman does control the Metropolitan Police. The difficulty about the proviso as it stands—and I hope the Home Secretary will consider amending it later on—is that any person who wishes to prevent sanction being given to a procession can do so. If I do not like certain people who propose to hold a procession, I have only to say that their procession will annoy me and that, as it passes by, I will heave half a brick at it. I may be told that in that case I should be arrested and bound over for having made a threat, but in those circumstances why were not the


Communists in the East End of London arrested and bound over for having threatened to break up a procession of which they did not approve? The Home Secretary has told us that under the existing law if you threaten to break up a procession you can be arrested and bound over. Why were not some of the Communists and Socialists who object to other people making speeches arrested and bound over?

Mr. GALLACHER: They do not object to other people making speeches, though one could understand it if they objected to the hon. Member making a speech.

Mr. WILLIAMS: Some of the hon. Member's sympathisers do occasionally object to me making speeches in my own constituency, but we have a simple method of dealing with them. We chuck them out. I do not know whether that is legal or whether I could be bound over for it. But how is the risk of public disorder to be established? Surely it is when threats are made against a procession. The Home Secretary has said that if you make threats you can be arrested. Therefore, you cannot legally make threats. How, then, is the chief officer of police or the Home Secretary to discover where there is a risk of public disorder? What degree of threat can be made, which will be legal but which will have the effect of preventing a procession? The object of the proposal is to deal with the case of public processions and threats against those processions. We now have the rather curious situation that most of the words in the proviso, according to the Home Secretary, are unnecessary because there is no means of establishing where there is a risk of public disorder—it being illegal to give any indication that there is such risk. As far as I can make out, the main purpose seems to be to enable trade unions to have processions. The Home Secretary mentioned the example of the 12th July demonstrations, but except for a certain part of Liverpool, with which I am familiar, these are confined in the main to Northern Ireland, to which the Bill does not apply.

Mr. GALLACHER: What about Scotland?

Mr. WILLIAMS: The outstanding example given by the right hon. Gentleman was that of the 12th July processions, at which there is always risk of

disorder. In future apparently these are to be sanctioned and also processions in which Communists and Socialists take part. I suppose it is all right but I do not understand it and I do not know whether anybody else understands it. In due course the magistrate will have to try to decide the question and I hope they will be luckier than I am.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITH: I welcome the attitude of the Home Secretary on this Amendment. I regard the Bill as a regrettable necessity, and we do not want to interfere with people wearing whatever kind of clothes they like, unless we are forced to do so. I think it desirable that the powers taken under this Clause should not be greater than are absolutely necessary. As an hon. Member opposite said, this is a Public Order Bill and not a Bill dealing primarily with the wearing of particular clothes by particular people. If it can be ascertained under the provisions in this proviso that on a particular and special occasion there is no risk of public disorder, I do not see why anybody should object to uniforms being worn on that occasion. The chief officer of police has to be satisfied that there is no risk of disorder, and the consent of the Secretary of State has to be given. I think that with those two safeguards, there is no danger of abuse of the permission which is here given and that the greatest possible amount of liberty which can be allowed ought to be allowed.

Mr. PRITT: Having heard the explanation of the Home Secretary and having regard to his attitude towards the next Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LESLIE: I beg to move, in page 1, line 13, after "other" to insert "special."
I move this Amendment on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Silverman), and I understand that the Home Secretary is prepared to accept it.

5.57 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I hope the Home Secretary will consider carefully the effect of this Amendment. By putting in the word "special" in addition to "ceremonial" and "anniversary" you are in danger


of narrowing the proviso further. This proviso would satisfy all the right hon. Gentleman's supporters in the House, if we had no limiting words in it at all and if the chief officer of police were allowed to determine the occasions on which the wearing of uniforms was likely to cause disturbance. As it is, I am afraid that the proviso will not give that general satisfaction. For instance, if the hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. Gallacher) wears his Communist regalia on Stalin's birthday he will get leave from the chief officer of police to do so, but if he proposes to wear it merely because be has been suspended from the service of the House of Commons or because he has won an election, leave will not be given. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to leave the word "other" as it is in the Bill, and I hope that when we come to the Report stage he will have reconsidered the position and will be willing to leave out the words "ceremonial" and "anniversary," and make the proviso apply to any occasion on which the chief officer of police is satisfied that there is no risk of disorder. This is a Public Order Bill and should provide that where the wearing of uniforms will not interfere with public order the police will permit them to be worn, but where they are likely to cause disorder, the police will prohibit them.

Sir J. SIMON: I do not think that the insertion of this word makes much difference. It is not for me to say how the courts will construe such words as "ceremonial, anniversary or other occasion," but I certainly do not think they will construe them as meaning any occasion you like. I should not have thought that this word would make so much difference as my hon. Friend appears to think.

Amendment agreed to.

5.59 p.m.

Sir I. ALBERY: I beg to move, in page 1, line 15, to leave out "with the consent of a Secretary of State."
The Home Secretary has just said how much he would like to be relieved of this duty. As far as I can see, the proviso permits on certain occasions ceremonial displays in uniform, the only condition apparently being that there shall be no danger to public order. Presumably it

is a matter which in any case would have to be decided by the police officer concerned, and presumably the Home Secretary would be guided entirely by his decision. The Amendment at any rate will give the Home Secretary an opportunity of saying why these words were put in.

6.0 p.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: I think it is most essential to have these words in. The mere fact that the Secretary of State is to be responsible in this matter brings the whole of the control within the power of this House.

6.1 p.m.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: There is another reason why these words should be left in. There is a large number of chief constables in the country, and if they are to be allowed to operate this Clause without having to refer to some common authority who would see that there is some common interpretation given to the Clause, we shall have chaos. This is a national Measure, to deal with this business on national lines, and I think it is very desirable that the consent of the Home Secretary should be obtained, because in that way it will be possible to see that the Act is uniformly applied throughout the country.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I would like to add my hope that these words may remain in the Bill. There may be occasions when we may wish to challenge the Home Secretary's action, and if he is not responsible, we shall have no chance of voicing our views in this House. If the Home Secretary is responsible, as I hope he will be, at any time when the Act is not being carried out, as we think, properly, he will be the man at whom we can get. I hope the hon. Member for Gravesend (Sir I. Albery) will see that point and not press his Amendment.

6.3 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment will see how this matter is regarded in the House, and I agree with what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Sir A. M. Samuel). For most purposes the Home Secretary is not responsible for the local police, and it is important to appreciate that point. Under our system of local police forces, each area


has its police authority, chief constable, and so on, and in the ordinary way the Home Secretary does not stand to be shot at for anything which they do, and it would be unfair if he did, but in this case, where we were contemplating what really are exceptions granted out of the general run of the law, there is a good deal to be said for securing that those exceptions should not be removed from all possibility of challenge in the House of Commons. Therefore, although very unwillingly, I agreed to this provision going in, and I am sorry to say to my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment that on this occasion I do not think I can let it go out.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.4 p.m.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 1, to leave out "Attorney-General," and to insert "Director of Public Prosecutions."
I tabled this Amendment in order to obtain slightly more reassurance and explanation than I was able, owing to this being a Committee point, to receive from the Attorney-General on the Second Reading. I feel that there are certain dangers in having the Attorney-General intervening in this matter, even in the way of sanctioning prosecutions. The Attorney-General rather pooh-poohed my fear that it would never be possible for anyone to hold the office who might be tempted to use his powers in a partisan spirit. I hope he is right, but I am not perhaps quite as sanguine about all office holders always as he appears to be. But even if he is right, it is very difficult for a man who, by the nature of his office, must be a party politician, to exercise a discretion in a matter of this sort, and to exercise it with that impartial judgment which is absolutely essential. Any prosecution which is ever made under Clause 1 must affect vitally party politics. It is a partisan decision, and for that reason it is very difficult, with the best will in the world, for any holder of the office to make an entirely unbiased decision.
More important still is it that it is very difficult for people who are being prosecuted to believe that the Attorney-General has made an unbiased decision. Whenever anybody is prosecuted under this Clause with the consent of the

Attorney-General, it will always be said that he has done it for party purposes. I do not suppose that that matters very much to the Attorney-General, whoever he may be at the time, but I think it is an undesirable thing to lay him open to, and for that reason I have put down this Amendment. It is essential that these duties should at least appear to be done in a non-partisan way.
I may be told that I am not doing very much by removing it from the jurisdiction of the Attorney-General and putting it in the jurisdiction of the Director of Public Prosecutions, because the latter officer is under the Attorney-General, but the fact remains that the decision will be made by someone who is not, by the nature of his office, mixed up in party politics. There was one thing that the Attorney-General said on the Second Reading which I confess might remove my objection. I understood him to imply that such decisions would not in fact be important decisions of policy, but would be more or less automatic; that is to say, that if there was a prima facie case against a man, prosecution would automatically be ordered, and the only point in his decision would not be a question of policy but whether or not a prima facie case existed. I do not know whether I am correct in that, but if it is so, it goes a long way to removing the dangers that I foresee. It is true, I believe, that in Scotland all prosecutions are governed in this same way, but there is a very great difference between having a Clause like this to govern all prosecutions and having it only in/ a special case which is, in my view, rather less desirable than any other. I do not wish to press the point, but I want some reassurance on it.

6.9 p.m

Sir STAFFORD CRIPPS: I think the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) is under a misapprehension as regards the position of the Director of Public Prosecutions. That officer takes his instructions from the Attorney-General, and the proposed alteration would make no difference whatsoever except that it might nominally relieve the the Attorney-General of the responsibility, and he could not then possibly be questioned in this House as to why he had or had not taken certain action. In effect, it would make no difference at all, and I should vastly prefer to see the real


man, the Attorney-General, left in the Bill rather than an alibi being put in for which in fact the Attorney-General would still be responsible. I think it is important that in matters of this kind, though there might not be one case in a thousand where anyone desired to challenge, there should be the possibility of challenge in this House, and as long as it is the responsibility of the Attorney-General, he can be challenged on any of these matters, as we know in the past he was challenged on one very memorable occasion. I am sure that on that occasion the hon. Member who moved the Amendment and his friends would have been very sorry if they could not have challenged the Attorney-General, and I think it was quite right that they should have been able to challenge him. In any matters of this kind it is essential, if we are to keep control, that the Attorney-General should be the officer of the State who should have to give his authority.

6.11 p.m.

Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Sir A. M. SAMUEL: Ever since the hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has been in the House, I think I have never agreed with him, but on this occasion I do. We are very jealous here not to infringe the liberty of the public. We wish to keep our freedom intact as far as possible, and for that reason I think we should not empower any single person to do anything in relation to this Bill about which there might be any doubt as to its infringement of the liberty of the subject. We should do nothing which would put us in a position of being unable at a moment's notice to challenge an officer of this House, an officer of the Government, such as the Attorney-General, if we think anything wrong has been done. The mere fact of the Attorney-General being a Member of this House would enable us, if anything occurred which we did not think right, to bring him to book in a moment. For that reason I think we ought to oppose this Amendment.

6.12 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I want to join the Popular Front on this occasion. I think it necessary, while the Bill is causing so much controversy, as has been outlined by all the speeches up to the present, as

to what it may mean, to keep as much control as possible in the House, and, after all, we want to be quite sure who is the person whom we are trying to get at. We are very anxious that our point of view should be protected. There might be some attempt made to get at our side, and we should not like, in trying to quell what we claim ought to be quelled, that it should hit us too hard. We want to hold as much control as possible here, at least for a time, in order to see how the Bill works, and I am in hearty agreement with the hon. Gentleman opposite in asking the Attorney-General to resist the Amendment and to take the power unto himself to decide what prosecutions shall be instituted.

6.13 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I think there is some misconception about the office of the Director of Public Prosecutions and its relation to the office of the Attorney-General. According to the Statute, the Director acts in all matters under the superintendence of the Attorney-General, and although, of course, a great deal of the business which passes through his hands is of so obvious a nature that there is no need for consultation with the holder of my office, in a matter of difficulty he does in the ordinary course consult with the Attorney-General and get his approval and advice as to what he does. The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) suggested that there might be a possibility, unless these words were inserted, that it might take away the Attorney-General's responsibility. I rather doubt it, but it would certainly look as if it did, and it is not desirable that it should look as if it did if it does not.
My own recollection is that I have answered questions in this House, not on the occasion to which the hon. and learned Gentleman referred, but dealing with cases arising under the Statute. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment made reference to what I said on this subject in the Debate on Second Reading, but it is the case that a large number of quasi-judicial duties are imposed on the holder of my office, and it would be a bad day if he, in carrying out those functions, were swayed by partisan considerations. With a provision of this kind in the Bill


the only question that will address itself to the mind of the Attorney-General for the time being is, "Is this a case within the Act, and is there prima facie evidence to justify proceedings?"

Mr. BEAUMONT: I am glad to inform the Attorney-General and others that I stand convinced on this matter. I do not know that all my objections have been removed, but the balance of benefit is on the side of the Government's proposal. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.17 p.m.

Mr. ELLIS SMITH: I beg to move, in page 2, line 4, at the end, to add:
Provided that no person so charged shall thereafter be kept in custody for any period exceeding seven days unless the consent of the Attorney-General to take further proceedings in respect of such charge shall meantime have been given.
Under this Clause it would be possible for a person to be remanded in custody indefinitely, and no time limit is placed upon the Attorney-General in which he must come to a decision. Some of us have had experience of the law when we have been involved in industrial disputes. As a result of the intervention of the police authorities we have been able to raise the question locally, and then we have been referred to the Home Office. After going to the Home Office, we have been referred back to the local authorities. One can visualise a similar set of circumstances operating in the administration of this Bill. We, therefore, consider an Amendment of this character necessary in order to put a time limit upon persons being remanded in custody, and on the Attorney-General in coming to a decision. He may be abroad or engaged in important national business and not have the time to give to a case of this character. The Amendment is suggested in order to safeguard a person against such circumstances.

6.19 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The object of this Amendment, as I understand it, is to expedite the Attorney-General and to see that circumstances shall not arise in which someone is kept in custody for longer than seven days. I think that that is unlikely to happen, because a man who is brought before the magistrates cannot be remanded for

longer than eight days and is, an fact, remanded for only seven days. I do not think there would be a case in which a magistrate would remand for a second period, unless, of course, it was a case in which the man's identity was unknown or he had not given any address and had not been able to satisfy the police that he would not abscond. These are exactly the kind of matters that are expeditiously dealt with.
I have, however, some sysmpathy with the point that the hon. Member has in mind, but I think that it is very unlikely to arise in practice. I appreciate that if the condition of the Attorney-General's assent is not interposed it might be possible for someone to be kept in custody for longer than seven days, and then in the end the Attorney-General would not think it a proper case, and no further proceedings would be taken. There are difficulties about the form of words which the hon. Gentleman has proposed. It is important that the general control of the justices over bail and of what recognisances are proper should be preserved, but I will undertake to look into the point. I will not undertake to say at the moment that there is a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter which is not open to other objections, but I will try to find a satisfactory way of dealing with it.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: While the Attorney-General has met the matter fairly, he seems to take the view that if somebody were charged and remanded for seven days, pending the consent of the Attorney-General, and if the case came up again at the end of the first seven days and the consent had not been granted, the magistrates would be prone to discharge the prisoner or to let him out on bail. A large number of citizens, when magistrates grant bail, cannot find the bail, and they are kept in custody, I agree that we are dealing with something that may not happen very often, but I agree that we should not seem to do anything to destroy the liberty of the subject. I think that, in fact, it will not infrequently happen that at the end of the first seven days the magistrates will say, "We do not know very much about this man and we cannot give bail. We cannot release him when he has been charged with an offence and the charge has not been withdrawn. We cannot however


proceed with the charge because, owing to the large number of these cases engaging his attention, the Attorney-General has not consented." There is a chance, therefore, that the man will be remanded for three or four sets of seven days. The Attorney-General says that he will try to find suitable words, and I ask him to succeed in doing so.

Mr. E. SMITH: I thank the Attorney-General for the way in which he has dealt with my Amendment, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question proposed,

"That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.25 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: At an earlier stage of the proceedings, on an Amendment in my name, the Attorney-General said that he was certain all the people who supported my Amendment were against Clause 1, but he did not know my attitude. That denotes a lack of perspicacity on his part, for out of 615 Members of the House only I have a Motion on the Paper to leave out Clause 1. Let me try to define my attitude. If the Attorney-General were bringing in a Bill to prevent the wearing of uniforms by political private armies, I would be in agreement with him. If there are any uniforms likely to provoke a breach of the peace we should take immediate steps to promote legislation if there is not legislation already. The fact is, however, that we have had legislation for a long time against the wearing of military uniforms or going about armed. If the Government were to bring in a Bill to discriminate purely between obnoxious political organisations, I should again be in agreement with them. Either this Clause is excessively repressive and makes us become, in the words of the Home Secretary, a supreme legislative governess determining what people shall wear and what they shall not; or, on the other hand, it will be nothing but of such a muddled character that no court can possibly carry out its provisions. I think there is quite a chance that history will say that this Clause cannot be worked. It is too vague and no court will be able really to determine what Parliament meant lay it. Every court will

have a different interpretation. I am more than inclined to take that point of view after listening to to-day's Debate. What is a uniform? The Attorney-General said "a tie is not a uniform." A little later my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) said that, in his view, a button could be a uniform.

Mr. SPENS: I never committed myself to that. I said that there would be no doubt that if the Clause were allowed to operate we should all know quite well what distinguishing dress in fact indicated a political association.

Mr. TURTON: Perhaps that is so. I put down the word "button" against my hon. and learned Friend's name, but perhaps it was some other hon. and learned Gentleman who said it. Then my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Mr. Lewis) said that a uniform could not be any one garment. It could not be a nightshirt or an overcoat. It must be a combination of two garments to be a uniform. Again, the Home Secretary said that, in his view, the Trades Union Congress regalia would be a. uniform.

Sir J. SIMON: I did not say that. I said it would be a pity if it were regarded as a uniform and automatically prohibited by the Bill.

Mr. TURTON: I am only trying to show with what a. degree of caution the learned stipendiary magistrates, who are lawyers, will have to approach the question of what a uniform is. I want the Committee to remember that although in great part this Clause will be administered by stipendiary magistrates, that will not be entirely the case. The Clause will be the law all over the country, not only in the towns where stipendiary magistrates preside over the courts but also in those districts where the courts are composed of those who are sometimes called "The great unpaid" of whom I happen to be one. What will happen when the ordinary local justice tries to interpret this Clause? What will be his view of a uniform? I shall be very interested to see some of the appeals to quarter sessions, arising out of this Clause, regarding what is or is not a uniform seeing that even in this Committee there is such a difference of opinion as to the meaning of the word.
After all, what is there wrong, to quote my previous example, in a man walking about in a green shirt because he believes that Alberta is the best governed country in the world? He is not a criminal, but we shall we making him a criminal by this Clause. It may be said that he will not suffer for it unless the Attorney-General agrees to take action. I believe we are shirking our duty in saying that. By this Clause we are making the wearing of certain clothes illegal. I notice a statement in to-night's Press that the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) sometimes goes about in grey socks without any shoes. Supposing all the members of the Socialist party who believe in him were to take off their shoes and wear grey socks, the socks would be a political uniform, and all those people would be penalised under this Bill if the Attorney-General took action. This Clause is, I believe, unduly repressive of what England has always believed in in the past, and I ask the Committee to reject the Clause in its present form.

Mr. LOGAN: I should imagine that if we got away from the House of Commons and went to some well known tailor in the City who was accustomed to building up uniforms, we should get a better idea of things. To call a button a uniform and to talk of hose as a uniform may be all right in the House of Commons, but anybody outside would simply reject that notion. Anybody in the tailoring trade would describe a uniform as being a special dress or attire allocated to or specified for particular bodies. To talk of buttons and hosiery and walking without shoes as pertaining to the wearing of a uniform is ridiculous.

Mr. TURTON: The hon. Member probably knows a great deal more about this subject than I do, but I note that he says that wearing special attire is, in his view, wearing a uniform. If we all copied the right hon. Member for South Hackney and wore special grey socks and no socks—the point made in the evening papers—that would be a uniform. If the hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) is in any doubt about it, let me remind him of the Pickwick Club, the uniform of which was a coat. It did not matter what the trousers were; the Pickwick Club uniform was merely a

coat. Had Mr. Pickwick gone about in specially coloured socks it would equally have been a uniform.

Mr. LOGAN: Just as they say that an hon. Gentleman engaged in the law is learned, so those engaged in tailoring are learned in their trade. If you were to go into a fashionable tailor's shop for a uniform for a naval or military officer the term "uniform" would be well understood and it would not apply to socks or buttons.

Mr. TURTON: I am glad to find that the hon. Member agrees with my Amendment which was negatived earlier, proposing that uniforms should be military uniforms. If he walks down Savile Row he will find shopkeepers announcing themselves as "makers of military and naval uniforms," and if he asks for a uniform he will be asking for a military or naval uniform—if he wishes to join up. But that is not what is in the Bill. We have not even the word "uniforms"; it is "uniform" by itself; which, just like the adjective "uniform", means the wearing of clothes of the same nature. What is exercising the ingenuity of my hon. and learned Friends in the House is what composes a uniform. Is it one garment or two, is it regalia, is it a button, or is it a sock? Those are questions which will have to be determined by stipendiary and lay justices, and that is far too heavy a burden to put upon them. If the hon. Member were to introduce a Bill prohibiting unauthorised military uniforms I should be quite willing to give it my support, but I cannot give my support to Clause 1 of this Bill.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: I cannot allow this Clause to pass, though I do not go the whole way with the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) in his desire to reject it, without some comment on the Clause, as I think it may work or may not work, or without some reference to the speech on Second Reading by the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), and particularly what he said of myself. He made an excellent speech, but I was a little disappointed to find there was no tribute to the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren) and myself. He rarely speaks well unless he is attacking somebody, and as he could not attack the Bill he had to empty the vials of his wrath on


our devoted heads. If in doing so he slightly misrepresented our attitude, that is neither here nor there. The right hon. Gentleman knows his East End of London very well indeed, and, speaking from that standpoint, he made a passionate defence of this Bill, and particularly of this Clause, but, like many other people who know a great deal, he never gives anyone else credit for knowing anything at all, though there are others who know just as well the evil things which go on in the East End of London and elsewhere and are just as anxious to prevent them. He painted a picture of the East End of London as a sort of glorious Garden of Eden, with everybody happy till the Fascist serpent came along and indicated, which the right hon. Gentleman did not, the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Thereafter all those scenes occurred which he and I and everyone else in the House wish to abolish.
My objection to this Clause is that I do not think it will be effective. I do not think it is a bad and wicked Clause, as does my hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton. I do not think it is going to do anybody harm. I do not care in the least if people are stopped from wearing uniforms. I do not want them to go out in fancy dress, but I do not think the Clause will have the effect which the right hon. Gentleman, the Government, myself and all others in the House desire. If it has any effect at all, which I am inclined to doubt, it will merely be as an advertisement of and a stimulus to the British Union of Fascists. That is the opinion of a great many people who have studied the question very carefully on the spot. The right hon. Gentleman in the speech I have referred to said he thought that what I had said, and, I gathered, what the hon. Member for Burslem had said, was the kind of thing which, if he were directing Fascist propaganda, he would like to hear in the House. I do not read the Fascist publications but I am prepared to bet him that when the reports of the Debate appear in those papers it will not be our speeches which are quoted, but the speech of the hon. Member for West Leicester (Mr. Nicolson), the speech of the hon. Member for North Bristol (Mr. Bernays), parts of the speeches of the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General and, perhaps, a few words from his own speech.
What I am afraid of is that the Clause will gain sympathy for those people while getting the country and the Government nowhere. I have not yet heard—and I hope I shall hear from my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend on the Treasury Bench—a single statement from a supporter of this Clause showing how this Clause can be the faintest benefit to the country. The right hon. Member for South Hackney rather twitted the hon. Member for Burslem and myself the other day because we did not divide the House against the Bill, but why on earth should we have done so?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON: The hon. Member will allow me to say that he must not associate himself too closely with the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). I did engage in a little mild chaff of my hon. Friend, but I was taking serious exception to the general tendency exhibited by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Beaumont) in dealing with a fundamental issue.

Mr. BEAUMONT: Far be it from me to leave the right hon. Gentleman vulnerable to the attacks of his hon. Friend. I am only too willing to receive all the blame, and if Castor wishes on this occasion to dissociate himself from Pollux I am again quite willing to accept his distinction. I was twitted for not dividing the House against the Bill—and the same thing might be said about this Clause—but why should I divide the House? I do not think the Clause will do any harm to anybody except the administration of the country, which is perfectly capable of looking after itself. The only harm which I think it may do will be to make the administration look ridiculous. But my objection to this Clause, and, incidentally, the next Clause is, that I do not believe they will work. I am willing to join with the Home Secretary or anybody else in putting down these beastly scenes which we all dislike, but it is my contention that this Clause will not do it. I am going to oppose the Clause for the reasons I have given, and if I am wrong no one will be better pleased than I am, but if I am right I shall have much pleasure in saying, "I told you so."

6.43 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I am one of those who have felt, and indeed expressed some


anxiety as to whether this Clause provides the best possible way of achieving the object in view. I should like to make it clear that the object has my wholehearted support. I think there is a general determination in the Committee not to allow any person or persons to lay foundations on which they or others may at some subsequent date erect the superstructure of a private army. We have seen something of the evils which arise from it in other countries and are determined to do what we can to prevent it happening in this country. Clearly one of the essentials of a private army is a uniform, and the prevention of the use of a uniform is to that extent a protection against the creation of a private army or private armies. From that point of view I think most of us will consider the purpose behind the Clause as worthy of support. As to the anxieties we have felt about its wording, after all, there is, I suppose, no one in the House better qualified to draft a Clause of this kind than the right hon. Gentleman who is at present the Home Secretary, who has great legal experience, and we can only hope, in so far as we have criticised the wording of the Clause and thought it not likely to be effective, that we are wrong and he is right.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. LEVY: I rise to support this Clause. "Uniform" is a very elastic term and I should like to use the word "uniformity" in conjunction with it, because this Clause is, I think, sufficiently elastic to prevent camouflage by the use of emblems, so that associations can be identified at once. We are all very zealous about liberty, and we are endeavouring to stop the abuse of liberty. Therefore this Clause can be properly used in a comprehensive manner with regard to uniforms, emblems, armlets or badges being in such a form that an assembly can take place and the Clause be evaded—not because black shirts or grey trousers cease to exist, but because they are identified by some equipment which shall create uniformity. That is why I am glad that no definition has been laid down as to what the uniform is. The magistrates can deal with uniformity if not with "uniform."

6.47 p.m.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: The hon. Gentleman has just spoken of the absence of

definition and of the consequent possibility that "uniform" may be anything. It is obvious that anybody can be brought into the scope of the Clause. The real danger, to my mind, is that under the criminal law a man must know what is the offence to which he has to plead guilty. When you put an accused man into the box he is asked, and must plead, whether he is guilty or not guilty, and in his silence he is assumed to be not guilty. How can a man know whether he has been guilty of a definite offence under the Clause when the offence is not defined? The Clause gives a chief of police the right to say when a man has or has not committed a crime, and that is very great infringement of liberty. We ought to know what we are doing.
This matter has been decided again and again. It was decided in the Scottish court, when a charge was made against a man for having more food in his house than was reasonable, during the War and under the law for the prevention of hoarding. The man asked "What is ' reasonable'?" Nobody knows what "reasonable" is. I may think that something is reasonable, but I am only judging with regard to myself. The Scottish court quashed the conviction. They said that a man must know definitely what crime he is said to have committed, and not what we think he has committed. If there is no definition or description of "uniform," whether it is a black shirt, a white shirt, or a piebald shirt, how is a man to know whether he is guilty or not? It is a complete inversion of one of the fundamental principles of our criminal law.
I am as much against the carrying on of private armies as any other hon. Member. In this peaceful country we do not want the citizens to get at loggerheads. When violence begins, you never know where it will end. One does not mind an individual row or so, but we do not want to have scrapping parties going about. The party against which this Clause is directed are the Black-shirts, but so far as I see recently they are holding only one or two meetings. They may be somewhat provocative, but not much harm may be done if people do not annoy them. The Clause attacks one of our fundamental rights. A subject ought to know of what offence he is said to be guilty. There is no definition of "uniform," except that it


signifies an association. How are you to know that it signifies an association? A man might say: "I wear a black shirt for economy's sake. The laundry charges are so high that I find it an economical proposition to wear a black shirt." You have no right to charge him with an offence unless he definitely knows what the offence is.

CLAUSE 1.—(Prohibition of uniforms inconnection with political objects.)

CLAUSE 2.—(Prohibition of quasi-military organisations.)

6.50 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 2, line 11, after "equipped," to insert "on a quasi-military basis."
I am doubtful about the scope of Subsection (1, b). The words may go much farther than some hon. Members imagine. I remember, in the history of this country, that demonstrations have come to London, composed of peaceful people wishing to present their petitions, but that they were held to have attempted a display of physical force in order to influence the Government. I remember 1926, when there was a general stoppage in support of the miners. On that occasion, the present Home Secretary and most hon. Members on the other side of the House took the view that an attempt was being made by the organised working-class movement to bring to bear upon the Government of the day a threat of physical force, in order that the demands of the miners might be granted. On looking at the words of the paragraph, I think of what happened a few days ago, when the hunger marchers came to London, and I would ask the Minister whether the people taking part in that hunger march would be considered as engaged in a movement which could be dealt with under paragraph (b). They were organised, they were equipped for the march, and they marched to London. The question is whether, being organised and equipped, and having marched to London, they might
arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised…trained or equipped.
For the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force,
in promoting the political object of the withdrawal of the means test. People

marching in that way cannot come within a certain distance of the House of Commons. They would be prevented from marching beyond point within a certain distance of this House, because, if they passed that point, they might be creating a reasonable apprehension that they were coming to overawe the Commons. I have reasonable apprehensions that such a demonstration as that of the hunger marchers may be prevented in the future, and my Amendment seeks to make it impossible that that prevention should take place. If the words of the Amendment were inserted, no one could say that hunger march was on a quasi-military basis, and they would give a certain amount of protection.
I find it difficult to select words to satisfy me, with regard to this matter. There is all the difference in the world between a march organised for a specific purpose upon a particular occasion and arising out of special circumstances, and the creation of what is practically a private army at the disposal of one section or one party in the community. The coming to London of the hunger marchers created no necessity among those who did not agree with them to organise a similar kind of march, but the uniformed bodies being organised by the Fascists place upon other parties the necessity of creating similar organisations. I do not believe it is the purpose of the Home Secretary to prevent such demonstrations as the hunger march, and I hope that the Government will so frame the words of the paragraph that people will be as free as they have been in the past to march to London to put their demands to the Government.

6.58 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE (Mr. T. M. Cooper): The Amendment is very similar in phraseology, and to some extent in purpose, to one which has already been considered by the Committee this afternoon under Clause 1, where it was sought to insert the qualifying words "military or quasi-military" in respect of political uniforms. In this case, as in the last, I suggest that the Amendment should not be accepted. I understand that the object of the hon. Member is to ensure that paragraph (b) is not too wide, and, in particular, is not so wide as to prevent such demonstrations as those which took place last week and to which he


made some reference. I do not like to commit myself in regard to specific cases, whether it is in answer to a question, "What is a uniform?" or "What is an organisation which falls within paragraph (b) of Sub-section (1) of this Clause 4" but I would point out that no organisation could possibly fall within the paragraph unless it were not only organised but also trained and equipped
for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension.
No information in my possession or which came under my observation with regard to such a demonstration as took place the other week would bring it in any reasonable sense within paragraph (b). I suggest to the hon. Member that even if I am wrong he would not be improving the position by the insertion of his Amendment, because the words organised, trained or equipped "on a quasi-military basis" would be perfectly apt to cover the comparatively elementary but recognisably military evolutions which might be included in a march of that kind.
But the real answer to this Amendment is a different one. Members of the House in all parts have again and again, both on Second Reading and to-night, expressed the view, with which I venture to concur, that it would be a profound mistake in legislating for this purpose to insert qualifications of a type which would or might have the effect of increasing materially the difficulties of enforcing the Act and making it more easy for contravention to take place. This seems to be exactly a case in point, because if you qualify the description of the illegal organisation by limiting it to that type of organisation where the training and equipment are on a quasi-military basis, you are simply opening a wide door to a defence in every case to say: "Yes, we are organised, trained and equipped, but our training and equipment are not on a, quasi-military basis." The addition of these words, the purpose of which I quite appreciate from what the hon. Member said, would not achieve the purpose which he desires, but, on the contrary, would be well calculated to increase the difficulties of enforcing the Act, and would render it more easy for those who

ought to be caught to escape. I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment, or if the hon. Member is satisfied with the explanation I have given, he might withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

7.4 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, at the end, to insert:
Provided that in any proceedings against a person charged with the offence of taking part in the control or management of such an association as aforesaid it shall be a defence to that charge to prove that he neither consented to nor connived at the organisation, training, or equipment of members or adherents of the association in contravention of the provisions of this section.
I have put down this Amendment because I think that a criticism which was made on the Second Reading is justified, and we want to be sure that the Clause is not drawn in wider terms than we intended. The reason I think that this is desirable will be plain to the Committee. Persons who take part in the control or management of a large or widespread association may be ignorant of the manner in which some of the members or adherents may be organised, trained or equipped. The manager of an association may have gone on holiday, be ill or be completely unaware that members or adherents are contravening the law, and it would be quite wrong to punish a person for taking part in the control or management of an association if what was done was illegally committed by adherents of whose proceedings he knew nothing. It is true that in law we sometimes make those who control an association responsible for the misdeeds of those who act under its authority. It is so with certain cases in the Companies Act. Here, since the misdeeds may be committed by adherents over whom the management of the association had no control, it seems just that if a person who is charged with taking part in the management of an association can show that he did not consent to or connive at these misdeeds it should be a defence. To make sure that only the guilty are punished this Amendment provides a defence, the effect of which is that a person is not punished if he can show that he did not consent to or connive at contravention of the law. I hope that the Committee will agree that it is a provision which we ought to make, because we must be sure that we do what is fair


and right, and the view which the Government take is that a proviso of this sort would be justified.

7.8 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I want to say a word with regard to this because members of the Committee will notice that there are on the Order Paper two Amendments standing in the names of myself and my hon. Friends that have the same objective as is contained in this provision. While there is a certain amount of protection in the words of this provision with regard to this very dangerous paragraph (b), I do not think the protection is adequate. Where agents provocateur may have got into an organisation I can see how difficult such a defence as that suggested may be. But I welcome the proviso; it is better than nothing.

7.9 p.m.

Mr. H. MORRISON: All of us agree with the Secretary of State in that we are anxious that no injustice should be done to anybody under this Bill, and I gather that my hon. Friends will be disposed to agree to the Amendment. But I should like some assurance from him as to its operation. I want to put this point. Suppose the principal person in a position of leadership in the organisation, or one of his deputies or principal departmental officers, could produce in court a letter of instruction which he had issued to the members of the organisation that he could not give his consent to or connive at the organisation, training or equipment of members. It is possible that one of the principal officers of an association might issue such a letter without in any way intending that that letter should be observed, but, on the contrary, seeing to it that the organisation was run on those lines which the Clause aims to stop. If that were done would it be a good defence in court, because it appears it might be documentary evidence, that this thing could not have been done with his consent or connivance? While all of us are anxious that nothing should happen under this Bill which would do injustice to anybody, one does not want to amend it in ways that will make it farcical if unscrupulous people care to evade it. I should like an assurance from the Home Secretary on that point.

7.11 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: If I may express a view for what it is worth—I have spoken to the Attorney-General—certainly the production of a document will not settle the matter in the accused's favour. The burden is on him to prove that. I think we must assume that the tribunal, whatever its form, will judge at the end whether he has discharged that burden or not. If there be any pretence or humbug about it, we may rely on all light being thrown on it which will go to show that it was a piece of humbug. There have been many cases in our courts where people have put up an excuse supported by writing, and when the matter has been investigated they have not been believed. The production of the document would not in itself prove the matter at all.

Amendment agreed to.

7.12 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 21, after the words last inserted, to insert:
 Provided that nothing in this section shall prevent the promoters of any public meeting from organising a body of stewards for the preservation of order at that meeting.
Many hon. Members will remember that the Home Secretary on the occasion of the Second Reading said that the Government did not desire to interfere with the very old custom whereby people promoting a political meeting, if they thought there were likely to be disturbances, provided from among their own supporters a body of stewards to keep order, and, if necessary, eject persons who endeavoured to interrupt the meeting. On reading the Clause it appears that there is some risk that that right is not sufficiently protected, because hon. Members will observe that in paragraph (a) one of the things which is forbidden is to usurp the functions of the police. It will be made clear to us that there is no reason why a police officer in uniform should not if he wishes to do so walk in to any public meeting. It seems to me that if one or more police officers in uniform were at a public meeting it might be their duty in the case of violent disorder to suppress it, and that, if another body of persons had been organised for that purpose, they would in fact be usurping the functions of the police. Our object in putting


down the Amendment is to obtain from the Home Secretary, either an assurance that there is nothing in the wording of the Clause that will interfere with the custom of providing stewards at political meetings, or some undertaking that he will consider the matter further with a view to inserting any words which may be necessary to achieve this purpose.

7.16 p.m.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: While generally we have no objection to this Amendment, in view of the fact that almost every political party makes arrangements for the presence of stewards at its meetings, we doubt very much the wisdom of inserting such a proviso as this in the Bill. One of the minor troubles that has led to the introduction of this Bill is the fact that, when certain organisations have arranged for stewards at their meetings, those stewards have been clad in uniforms, and we have considerable doubt whether a proviso such as this would not take that kind of thing outside the provisions of the Bill, and enable organisations to have stewards wearing some kind of distinctive uniform. There does not appear to be anything in the Bill which prevents any political party from arranging for stewards at its meetings, and I think that to insert this proviso would be very dangerous. It is accepted that the right of an organisation to have its own stewards at its own meetings should be fully preserved. There is nothing in the Bill which takes it away, and I think that, if the assurance asked for is given, we ought to leave the matter where it is.

7.18 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I do not want to interrupt anyone who desires to speak, but, as I have been asked by two speakers whether I could give an assurance, I thought it would be for the convenience of the Committee if I made some remarks at this stage, and I hope that those who rose at the same time will not take any offence at my intervening now. I can give the assurance asked for. It is well known, and is, of course, a matter of common sense as well as of routine legal principle, that those who organise a meeting are entitled to have stewards there, who, if persons create excessive interruption, can exercise the right which the promoters have, first of all to ask them to keep quiet, and, if

they will not keep quiet, to remove them if necessary by reasonable force.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the stewards be permitted to wear rosettes?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: Perhaps I had better deal with one thing at a time. That such a right exists no one can doubt or ever has doubted. My hon. Friend who moved the, Amendment asked whether such stewards would be usurping the functions of the police. There can, I suggest, be no such danger at any time. It is true that a policeman may go into a meeting, and it is true that, if breaches of the peace occur, he may deal with them, and, indeed, it may be his duty to deal with them; but the stewards are in no sense usurping the functions of the police by being there and exercising their duties if a policeman is not there, or exercising their duties if a policeman is there. The right to have stewards, and the right of stewards to take such action as they may be called upon to take, being undoubted, no one can suggest that in carrying out those duties and exercising that right they are in any way usurping the functions of the police. Certainly, there is no intention in the Bill to interfere in any way with the proper organisation of stewards, and I hope my hon. Friend will find himself able to accept the assurance I have given.

Mr. MACQUISTEN: Will the Attorney-General, say whether stewards would be permitted to wear rosettes?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: That I think has nothing to do with this Amendment. We had a considerable discussion on the Amendments to Clause 1, and it would be quite out of order for me now to repeat what was then said. Whether a steward would or would not be permitted to wear a rosette, he would not be usurping the functions of the police.

7.22 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: There is obviously no difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee on the principle of this matter. Neither side wishes to see stewards done away with, but I must say I am not quite satisfied by the answer which the Attorney-General has given, and I would like to ask him one or two further questions. My hon. Friend referred to paragraph (a), but I would like to quote to the Committee


the words of paragraph (b), which would seem to me on a possible legal interpretation to preclude the use of force. The words are:
Organised and trained or organised and equipped either for the purpose of enabling them to be employed for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object, or in such manner as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose.
Let me give a specific case. It is the custom of many political parties at by-elections and general elections to have bodies of stewards. Frequently the same stewards appear at more than one meeting; they appear at open-air meetings and at indoor meetings. Their duties are assigned to them in advance; they are told what they have to do. If the agent is tactful, they are told not to exercise undue physical force or unduly to exert their authority, but in the event of trouble to act as a body and remove offending persons from the room. Are they not
organised and trained or organised and equipped
for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object? My hon. Friend shakes his head, but we have to be very careful, especially in a Committee including a number of eminent lawyers, that the judge does not take a different view from the lawyers. That happens very frequently. Again and again we have been assured that such-and-such words are quite incapable of the: meaning that is attached to them; lawyer after lawyer has got up and said so; but the judge has taken a different view. It is not necessary to remind the Committee that the judge is not in the least concerned with the intentions of Parliament, or with what the Minister said in putting forward the Bill, but is purely concerned with the effect of the actual words. I would ask the Attorney-General whether it might not be the case that a body of 15 or 20 stewards organised for a by-election, and sent round to meeting after meeting wearing rosettes and badges, might not be committing an offence under this Clause? I am sure he would agree that if that were so no one in any part of the Committee would wish to see the Bill left as it is, because it is inherent in the Bill that stewards should exercise the same functions which they have exercised hitherto.

That, in fact, is the intention of the Government; they have made it plain that generally speaking they do not want the police to act as stewards. I shall be very grateful if at some later stage an answer can be given to the points I have put.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. R. C. MORRISON: May I give another specific case on the same lines as that given by the Noble Lord, but of an entirely different character? A political meeting was held in my constituency some months ago, and the stewards were brought from Bethnal Green. They came in a coach, and got out outside the town hall, where they were formed up, numbered off, and marched into the hall. Previously two barrels of beer had been ordered, and, having partaken of the beer, they proceeded under the public baths and armed themselves with iron bars. As the hour for admitting the public approached, they were again numbered off and posted to their particular places. When the chairman, a local alderman, took the chair, the audience got up in scores and protested against the presence of these people, who were posted all along the hall, each holding a bar of iron. The audience appealed to the chairman, whom many of them knew well, to ask these people to go away, or they could not let the meeting go on. Finally the men had to withdraw. They left the ante-room in confusion, left the iron bars lying about, drank all the beer, smashed most of the glasses, and then returned to their headquarters at Green Street, Bethnal Green. And the Corporation of the Borough of Tottenham, where this happened—

Earl WINTERTON: Is the hon. Member arguing that, because of that most calamitous happening, which incidentally would be prohibited under the Bill, all stewards should be prohibited?

Mr. MORRISON: What I intended to indicate to the Noble Lord was that there are stewards and stewards. The baths committee of the corporation, of which I happen to be an alderman, held a special meeting afterwards, and decided that the hall should never be let again to the same people. I am sure that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment had no intention of allowing that sort


of thing to be permitted, and, therefore, personally I do not think the Amendment is necessary, and hope it may be withdrawn.

7.29 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: I support the Amendment because I agree entirely with what the Noble Lord has just said, namely, that the courts would have no regard to the intentions of Parliament. I have had cases myself in which the Judge has said that if such-and-such a thing were the intention, the House of Commons would surely have said so. Looking at paragraph (b), I have no doubt at all that any judge would disagree entirely with what the Attorney-General has just told the Committee, because he would instantly look, not at paragraph (a), but at the whole of Clause 2, and paragraph (b) would, I should think, distinctly prohibit anything like an organised band of stewards such as some of us have had at our own meetings, not for the purpose of attacking our opponents, but for the purpose of defending ourselves against possible attacks from them. I have had experience of one of the roughest Divisions in Lancashire, where in some places it would have been utterly impossible to get inside the hall, not to mention addressing the public, if I had not had an organised body of stewards. Therefore, I consider this Amendment to be one of the best on the Paper if. it is desired to safeguard the system that has been in operation ever since at any rate, have been in politics. I agree with the Noble Lord that, no matter what the intention of the House may be, if it is not properly expressed in the Bill when it becomes a statute the court, when it comes to consider Clause 2, will ignore the assurance given by the Attorney-General. I have no doubt that the Attorney-General himself would carry it out if he were a judge, as he may be in time, but it is necessary, in order to safeguard the system of stewards, that this Amendment should be put into the Bill.

7.31 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: When I spoke previously, I dealt with paragraph (a), because my hon. Friend put that forward as the point that was exercising those who moved the Amendment, but we had considered the whole Clause from the point of view of doing our best to make sure that in preventing the activities that

we desired to prevent we did not use words which could be construed as applying to stewards. May I tell the Committee why in our view paragraph (b) could not be construed as applying to stewards? Restoring and maintaining order is not a political object. No one could say for a moment that a policeman coming into a meeting to restore order was promoting a political object. When stewards are organised at meetings in order to see that, should there be interruptions, reasonable steps are taken to deal with the interrupters, it could no more be suggested that they were promoting a political object than would a policeman who was present at a public meeting to see that people did not commit breaches of the peace.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: How can you conceivably be promoting a political object if you wear a uniform and do nothing else? What does a steward do? He stands there in the hope that, as the result of his presence, people will not make a noise at the meeting. It is not promoting a political object if you dress yourself up in a uniform without doing anything else.

Vice-Admiral TAYLOR: Are not stewards really preserving freedom of speech?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I think, was dealing with the first part of Clause 1. That surely is quite different. That is a case where the wearing of a uniform, a black, brown or green shirt, signifies association with any political organisation or the promotion of any political object. I was referring to Clause 2 (b), which deals with the use or display of physical force in promoting a political object, and suggesting that those whose duty as stewards is that of seeing that order is kept cannot be said to be using or displaying physical force in promoting any political object. I did not think it necessary to refer to the safeguard with regard to the consent of the Attorney-General, because the words are plain. As was stated on the Second Reading, they are put in as a safeguard to prevent frivolous prosecutions, or prosecutions which are clearly not within the Act, being undertaken.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: What the Attorney-General has said does not seem quite to meet the


point of those who have put down the Amendment. He took the analogy of a policeman who enters a disorderly public meeting in order to restore order. Is that quite on a par with the example given by the Noble Lord? In the first place, the policeman only enters upon a single occasion. He enters for the one purpose of restoring order, and he has no sort of connection with the people who have organised the meeting. In the example that the Noble Lord gave us there was an entirely different state of affairs. He mentioned the case of a body of stewards not entering the meeting simply for the purpose of restoring order, but going round following the candidate or the party leader for the purpose, among others, of keeping order. After all, stewards are not there only to act as chuckers-out. They are there to facilitate the arrangements of the meeting. If it is a crowded meeting, they are there to marshal the people and direct them to their seats, and probably to perform any other minor services of that kind that may be required of them by the organisers of the meeting, and in the last resort they are there to restore order. If you have a body of stewards brought together for all those purposes, are they not in a rather different position from a policeman who is simply called in in the last resort?
It may be true that on a strict reading of the paragraph a steward might not be said to be trained or equipped, and it is a considerable safeguard that the Attorney-General's consent is necessary. But, after all, it is provided in Clause 7 that offences under Clause 2 are not only to be open to conviction and indictment, but they are also to come before courts of summary jurisdiction, and it seems to me that there is still room for misconception. The very fact that so many hon. Members see some ambiguity in the words shows that a similar mistake might easily be made by a bench of lay magistrates who had to consider a case of the kind. I cannot see that it would weaken the Bill or destroy its purpose in any way if an Amendment of this kind were inserted. I hope the Government will reconsider their decision and will accept this Amendment, or some similar saving clause.

7.39 p.m.

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS: I am a little surprised at the reluctance of the Front Bench to accept this or some other Amendment to the same purpose. It is no good telling us that legal opinion says it is all right. Every Bill that passes through Parliament has its actual terms settled not by one barrister, but by lots. It is never the case that an Amendment drafted by a private Member is incorporated in a Bill unless the legal experts are satisfied that it is well drafted and, if it is not, they ask him to alter it. It is, therefore, never Parliament that drafts an Act of Parliament but expert barristers, with the advice very often of the Law Officers of the Crown and other distinguished members of the profession who happen to be associated with the Government. But the judges are always accusing Parliament of being clumsy in the way it drafts legislation. That clumsiness is never committed by Parliament, but by learned members of the profession. Therefore, I never take the slightest notice when they say it will be all right on the night. They have been caught out too often. That is what troubles us. I can see barristers earning colossal fees. arguing what is meant by "promoting any political object." Is the ordinary body of stewards organised and trained? They are collected together by someone who acts as a leader and instructs them in their duties, which is training and organising. What are they there for among other things For the use or display of physical force. That is clear. Conservatives know all about rough meetings, because our opponents attempt to break up ours, and we very rarely interfere with theirs. There are many parts of the county where, for years, it has been impossible for Conservatives to say what they have to say without yelling and screaming crowds of hooligans supporting the Socialist party, doing all they can to prevent them.
Some of us are quite sick and tired of what happens, and we want to be sure that we can go on protecting ourselves as we do now. [An HON. MEMBER: "Try talking sense ! "] The least intelligent interrupter generally interrupts on those lines, as a, rule before he has heard a word that has been said. After all, we have only to take what happens in this House to discover whether what I say is true or not. I think the Attorney-


General will not deny that stewards are organised and trained, or that they are employed for the use or display of physical force. He bases himself on the words "in promoting any political object." What are they there for To amuse themselves? They are there to enable their man to get a fair hearing in the cause that he is pleading. It is mere legal quibbling to say they are not promoting a political object. They would not be there unless they thought they were promoting a political object. They are there because they believe in their cause. Why should the Front Bench hesitate What does it matter if you say it twice? It is better to say it twice than not at all. I am quite unimpressed by the Attorney-General's arguments. Let us make the Bill so clear that there can be no misunderstanding of any kind. Some of us want to be sure that we are to have some measure of protection of the kind that we have been able to get for ourselves in the past. One thing we do not like about the Bill is that it is intended to please Socialists and Communists.

7.44 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I do not want to say very much in answer to the amusing provocation of the hon. Member who has just spoken, but I should like to say on behalf of Socialists that this country really presents to us a long history of, first, Radicals and then Socialists being prevented by Conservatives from expressing any opinions at all. The Home Secretary was a member of a Liberal Government which had to pass a Public Meetings Act to prevent Tories smashing up their meetings. They had to form a Gladstone League to prevent Conservatives blackmailing their people not to vote Liberal. However, we shall have to take some more suitable occasion on which to go into the matter and ascertain how much of the interruption of the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) is due to political intolerance and how much to the provocation of the hon. Member for South Croydon.
I want to support the Government in resisting this Amendment, for a reason which I am afraid involves looking at the language like a lawyer, which incidentally the hon. Member was doing very well. I will not say that there is no danger of a bench of magistrates misinterpreting the Clause, because, of course, lay magistrates are always a

danger. We have to compare two dangers, the Clause as it stands and the Clause with the words added. I think that every hon. Member in the Committee wants to be assured that the Clause works properly and reasonably in regard to organised stewards, and I suggest that, as the Clause stands, there is no danger of thinking you cannot organise your stewards. What makes me anxious to support the Government is that, if you put in the proviso, when magistrates, with the assistance of their learned clerks, come to consider the matter, they will not look at it as it stands in the words before the Committee, and say a proviso has been added, and you need not pay any attention to it. They will look at the whole thing—they will not then know the history of the discussion before the Committee—and the clerk will say "Gentlemen, if the proviso were not there, I should say that this particular case was not covered by the proper construction of the Sub-section at all, but as Parliament, in passing this legislation, thought it necessary to put in a proviso, it means that Parliament regarded the words without the proviso as having a construction so wide that it would even prevent you from organising stewards. Therefore, in this particular case, I must advise you that this Clause has a very wide meaning indeed, and would hit almost anything."
Some of us have particular predilections for or objections to one party or another. We all want liberty of the subject, but we are not quite sure how much we want other people to have it. Therefore, some of us want the Clause wide and some of us want it narrow. If I am right in thinking that the bulk of the Members of this Committee want the Clause in such a shape that it can be construed in a reasonable and businesslike fashion without having these words so drawn as to be almost vexatiously wide, they would do better to support the Government in moving these words out unless their reflex action be a greater disaster than their omission.

7.48 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: Before the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) explained the position, I was disposed to believe that there was a considerable fog in the mind of everybody as to what the Clause means. When he had finished I became quite certain of it, and for that


reason I wish to urge upon the Government the force of the argument put forward by my hon. Friend who supported the Amendment. I do not think that is matters whether these particular words are put in, whether it is in the nature of a proviso or whether at a later stage of the Bill the ingenuity of the draftsmen is exercised to find words which would not be open to the objection of which I see the force. There is something provocative, perhaps, in a proviso. It seems to draw a lot of attention to itself. There may be other ways of doing this thing, but, with or without a proviso, nothing has been said so far which has really convinced any section of the Committee that this Clause is not as wide as the Bill itself.
The case was admirably put by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). I do not often agree with him, but he put the whole thing conclusively. Stewards are organised and trained, and whatever the Attorney-General may say, they are in the mind of any reasonable man, organised for a political object. They work to promote the interests of their candidate, and to get him a fair hearing and facilitate his return to Parliament. Hon. and learned Members who are familiar with electioneering law will know how many things in the past have been done during elections in order to facilitate the election of a special candidate for Parliament. I cannot for the life of me imagine how anybody can say that it cannot be construed that stewards who are organised at election time go round to assist in every possible way among other things, to keep order and to use physical force, are not organised for a political purpose. If the doubt remains—and there is no question whatever in the minds of a, large number of hon. Members that a doubt does exist—this important liberty should be safeguarded. It is no use the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) saying, as he said the other day, that if you believe the Bill to be necessary you must give the widest powers, and not allow anything to slip up. I am interested in seeing that the Bill does not do any harm, and that it safeguards all parties and assures their getting a fair hearing. I am not convinced by the Attorney-General, and I do not think for a moment

that many hon. Members are. I beg of the Government, if they cannot accept the Amendment in its present form, to consider if they cannot put in something at a later stage of the Bill to render the right to organise stewards to safeguard order at public meetings beyond any possible dispute by stipendiary magistrates, lay magistrates or anybody else.

7.53 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: What my hon. Friend has said in his concluding words probably represents the feeling of a good many Members of the Committee. The question of whether Clause 2 could possibly touch the proper stewarding of public meetings has not escaped our attention. We have looked at it from many points of view as carefully as we can. Though I suffer from the great incapacity pointed out so vigorously by my hon. Friend the Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams), I think that the argument advanced by the Attorney-General was right. That is to say, it would not have occurred to me, if the Sergeant-at-Arms were called upon to remove any hon. Member of this House who was protesting his particular point of view too vigorously, and he did so, that he would be promoting any political object. [An HON. MEMBER: "Would he not do it on both sides?"] It seems to me that the hon. Gentleman was right, and that what was happening was being done for the purpose of keeping order. That is a matter which, I agree, might be further considered. All that I or any of us is concerned about is that we should not try to add unnecessary words to the Bill and embroider it with provisos which intelligent persons think may be useful and yet really produce not greater clarity, but greater confusion.
What the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said just now about the effect of adding what appeared to be incongruous words to the Clause is true. It very often happens that, when judges have to construe Acts of Parliament, which are not construed in the way that some people think they should be, they bring down upon themselves and upon lawyers in this House the unmeasured contempt of persons who have not that qualification, but it by no means follows that people in this House have not understood their business. It is sometimes because Members of this House, most anxious to.


get the language clear, have gone on adding provisos in Clauses until the total result is rather difficult to construe. Every experienced Member of the Committee knows that there is no difference between lawyers and laymen on that matter. But it is difficult to understand which is right. The argument of the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) is one which must be considered. I do not think that it is right to say that, because the stewards do a great many things in addition possibly to preparing to throw people out should confusion arise, the whole thing is organised for a display of force in promoting any political object. If they simply show people to their seats in the halls and all the rest of it, it has absolutely nothing to do with the point.
We will look at it, and we will do so with all the greater advantage because we have the speeches that have been made. I have never taken the view, and the Attorney-General will agree, that we ought to be obstinate, but we think that it is better not to insert the Amendment for the reasons put forward by some hon. Members. Will the Committee give us an opportunity of looking at it again? I shall be available to any hon. Member who thinks that he would like to make comment or suggestion about it. We will see if it seems right to suggest a form of words on the Report stage, and will consult hon. Members specially interested as much as we can. Our object is the same. We all agree that stewarding has to be preserved. I mean normal and proper stewarding by a reasonable number of people who know that they must not use more than a reasonable amount of force. It is not stewarding if you put bullying people into the hall; that is not stewarding at all. If we can get a proper form of words to protect what hon. Members in all parts of the Committee want, it will be the better thing to do, and perhaps on that understanding we may now pass on to the next Amendment.

Mr. LEWIS: I should like to thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his kind promise to give further consideration to this matter, and in these circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.58 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I beg to move, in page 2, line 28, after "make," to insert "for a period not exceeding thirty days."
I and my hon. Friends behind me have looked upon this Clause with a little anxiety, and I wish to say a word or two upon our attitude towards it. It is not really a hostile attitude. We are somewhat in sympathy with it. This is a severe Clause, and severe clauses are sometimes necessary. Ordinarily speaking, the Committee would agree that we do not do anything to anybody without letting him be heard. There are moments when it must be so. The suggestion that you should put a stop order on the movement of somebody's property without giving previous notice before any summons can be heard, is one with which we respectfully agree. Therefore we want to see the first number of lines standing:
the court may make such order as appears necessary to prevent any disposition without the leave of the court of property held by or for the association.
We are anxious that that sort of thing should be limited, and we feel that litigation of this character, like litigation of a great many characters, is often apt to drag on. It would be a very good thing that even that power of putting a stop order on before doing anything else should have a definite limit for the period suggested—not exceeding 30 days. The Attorney-General and I have both had about the same amount of proceedings not dissimilar before judges in chambers, where, I suppose, this would probably come, and I think he would probably agree that 30 days would give one ample time in which to operate the stop order and let the matter come before the court. In these circumstances, I hope the Government will see their way to accept the Amendment or something of the same nature.

8.0 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member has appreciated that property can be disposed of with the leave of the court. I think my hon. and learned Friend will agree that the courts are very alert to see that there are no improper impediments to the disposition of property in cases of this kind. If there was a proper case where during the inquiry the association should be able to deal with its


property, the court could tie trusted to give them leave. We take objection to the suggested period of 30 days. There might be cases where the inquiry would take longer than 30 days. If those words were inserted the order would cease to have any effect, and I am not sure that there would not have to be another application. If the hon. and learned Member's idea was simply to see that the inquiry was carried out with due expedition, then there is full power to the court to secure that, and the court could no doubt direct the matter to be mentioned again if further time were required.

Mr. PRITT: I was stating the view that there is given to the court two separate powers (1) that of making an order to prevent disposition of property, and (2) that of directing an inquiry. The intention was that the period extended to 30 days was to apply to the order preventing disposition, and not to the order directing inquiry.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: It is to prevent any disposition without the leave of the court.

Mr. PRITT: I would rather have the matter dealt with than withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

8.3 p.m.

Mr. LEWIS: I beg to move, in page 2, line 39, to leave out from "court," to "and," in page 3, line 1.
The Clause as it stands provides that the moneys in the possession of an association which has come within the operation of this Act shall be applied first to necessary expenses, secondly, towards repaying money to persons who have subscribed in good faith, and thirdly to the Crown. The purpose of my Amendment is to strike out the provision that there shall be repayment in certain cases. The words prescribing the repayment are as follows:
the repayment of moneys to persons who became subscribers or contributors to the association in good faith and without knowledge of any such contravention as aforesaid.
I have moved my Amendment with the idea of drawing the attention of the Government to what seems to me to be the great difficulty in which they may

involve some future Executive. It is an extraordinarily difficult matter in the case of a political association to say whether any particular individual or individuals who have joined it were fully aware of the true purpose of the association when they paid their subscription. That task might almost be reasonably described as impossible. There is the further consideration that if people subscribe to a political organisation they have the duty of informing themselves what are the purposes of the association before they join it and subscribe money to it. If they are so unwise as to make a subscription to an association with the purpose of which they are ill-acquainted, I do not think they can complain if they lose their money, should that association prove to be illegal. There is no hardship in leaving out the words which I propose to delete, but if they are left in it seems to me that the Executive will be involved in a task of extreme difficulty and complication.

8.7 p.m.

Mr. SPENS: It has been the custom, when the court comes to wind up the affairs of what would be an illegal association and to discharge liabilities, to repay to persons who have innocently subscribed to it before knowing that it had illegal objects, the amount of their subscriptions, leaving the balance forfeit to the Crown. That principle has been recognised in all cases of illegal banking corporations where for years banking has been carried on illegally and finally some one has found out that the association was carrying on an illegal business. The general principle which has always been applied by the courts has been to discharge liabilities, to repay to innocent contributors their subscriptions and then to forfeit the balance. It is true that it is a difficult executive task for the Winding-up-Division to ascertain whether people were or were not innocent contributors, but the machinery—I am speaking from recollection—which is adopted is that of making each individual person swear a claim that they did in fact subscribe in all innocence. The liquidator has to go through these claims, and if he has any reason to suspect and he succeeds in proving that a guilty subscriber has made a claim for repayment as an innocent person, that person will suffer the consequences of having committed perjury to get his money repaid.


It is impossible to say, when you have to deal with many hundreds of claims, that some do not get away with a false claim, but a good deal of care is taken to investigate claims, and there is a certain amount of hesitation on the part of most people to run the risk of severe punishment for wrongful claims. I suggest, therefore, that, on the whole, this having been accepted as the general principle of distribution in the case of the winding up of illegal associations in the past, there is no very good reason why we should depart from it in this case.

8.10 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: I agree, for the reason put forward by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens), that the Committee would be well advised to leave these words in the Clause. They are in consonance with general practice of the past, and if we do not put in such words we might be indulging in retrospective confiscation. There may be a completely innocent subscriber who subscribes to an association and thereafter the association may change its character and contravene the provisions of this Act. In that case the subscriber should be entitled to the repayment of his subscription, in accordance with the principle which has been adopted by the courts in the past. It would be very undesirable if in these circumstances through the illegal action of persons over whom he has no control, he should lose his rights. For these reasons I suggest that the words should remain in the Bill. It may not be very likely that they will be much used, but they enshrine the principle that we should not retrospectively deprive people of their rights.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.12 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (4).
I want to make a few comments on this Sub-section without, I hope, marring the harmony which has so far marked our proceedings. As the Clause stands and as it was presumably originally intended to stand in the Act, it seemed to me one of the strangest Clauses that I had ever read in any Bill. It would have been possible, according to the words printed here, for evidence to be given against a defendant in any criminal or civil proceedings on the utterances of some

entirely irresponsible person who was unconnected with him and whose very name he might not know. That was as the Clause originally stood. Since then two Amendments have been put down by the Secretary of State, which go a considerable way towards meeting the objections which some of us feel, and which some hon. Members expressed on Second Reading. It is now necessary for the prosecution to prove affirmatively that the person whose words are being used as evidence was either a member or an adherent of the association concerned. We are grateful to the Government for these changes, but even admitting these Amendments the Clause is still rather wider than it need be. Hon. Members, learned and lay, are aware of the fact that the general rule of evidence, at any rate in the criminal law, is, that no words are evidence against a man unless they are spoken in his presence. There are certain well defined exceptions to that rule, but that is the general rule, the good sense of which is obvious and always has been obvious. When we are dealing with an association of persons it is necessary, and we all realise it, to make some further exceptions to the general rule of evidence, but I think the Sub-section goes rather further than is necessary.
There are certain obvious cases where we all admit that evidence of this kind may be necessary. If you are proceeding against the leader of a certain organisation it is obviously desirable and necessary you should be able to give evidence of a speech made not in his presence but under his inspiration by one of the principal lieutenants of the movement. If you have a procession which has all the marks of a military march, then again it is perfectly reasonable you should be able to give evidence of that, although the person in the dock or the defendant in civil proceedings was not actually taking part in the procession. You want to be able to give evidence not only of what is done by the organiser or leader of the movement, but also of what is done on his behalf by other members of the organisation. Powers like that are necessary and reasonable when you are giving evidence of something which is done as part of the proceedings of the organisation concerned; you are making the leader or organiser responsible for something that is done in the way of the ordinary propaganda of the organisation.


The Sub-section, when it has been amended in the way suggested, will go a great deal further than that. Suppose you put Mr. X in the dock charged with committing an offence under this Subsection, you will be able to give evidence of words that are used not only by members of his organisation but by adherents at any time in any place and in any circumstances. We have all at one time or another had the experience of fighting an election, and in that case we have all been the leaders of a particular movement or organisation in our constituency. I wonder how many hon. Members would like to undertake responsibility for every single remark casually made by any one of our supporters. I do not think any hon. Member in any party would undertake such a burden. Every movement contains certain irresponsible members. It is the common experience that there are certain followers, firebrands, who are prepared to go much farther than the leader of the movement, and who, in fact, express views of which the leaders or organisers would probably strongly disapprove.
The danger would not be so great if the Clause did not include the word "adherents." I agree that it is necessary to have that word. You cannot limit this Sub-section simply to the paid-up membership of any organisation, because people can always get round such a provision by saying that he was not a fully constituted member. But, nevertheless, the term "adherents" is very wide, and there is no definition in the Bill as to what it means. Therefore any hanger-on, any sympathiser, would probably be taken to be an adherent, and what any such sympathiser might choose to say in any circumstances might be used under this Sub-section as evidence against the person against whom proceedings were being taken. I bring this up for consideration only because the Sub-section is still wider than is necessary, and I hope that the Government are prepared to reconsider the wording, and are prepared to put in some further safeguards in order to provide that the utterances for which the organisers or leaders are to be made responsible are utterances for which they can fairly be held to be liable, and not some chance remark of someone who

happens to be casually associated with the movement.

8.22 p.m.

Mr. FLEMING: The difficulty which hon. Members feel about this Sub-section is the word "adherents." It is the same difficulty as occurred in the use of the word "adjacent" in the De-rating Act. Shortly after that Act was on the Statute Book a case cropped up in Manchester in which I was interested, and the result turned on the meaning of the word "adjacent." To my surprise it was decided that one hereditament on one side of the street could be adjacent to another hereditament in the same ownership on the other side of the street. Most laymen would take the word "adjacent" to mean adjoining, and when you have a street separating two hereditaments which are said to be "adjacent" I am beginning to wonder what interpretation the courts will put on the word "adherents." I am afraid that the Subsection is so loosely drawn that the word will include anybody who in the slightest way has said anything in appreciation of the objects of any political association.
I, myself, in this House have probably used a phrase which might imply that I am an adherent of some Fascist organisation. I am afraid that no Fascist organisation would claim me as an adherent, because I have roundly denounced their objects. In my division the Fascists are stronger than in any other constituency. The word "adherents" might be construed as widely as the word "adjacent" was, and might bring me in as an adherent of the Fascist organisation, a thing which I should deeply regret. I have been called all sorts of things in my time, but I do not wish to be called a Fascist. I could not be called a Fascist considering the way I have denounced the anti-Semitic movement. I would like to see Sub-section (4) work properly, but in considering it I cannot help thinking of what the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary said about it last Monday. He was discussing this Sub-section, and I was present. He said it was a case of the rules of evidence in construing this Subsection, and he used the following words:
If a man is accused in this country of receiving stolen goods, and if it can be shown that the goods are stolen, as soon as you have shown that he has got them, instantly, notwithstanding that principle of the law, it lies upon him, though he is an


accused person in the dock, to show what is his explanation of what would otherwise be an inference of guilt against him."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th November, 1936; col. 1358, Vol. 317.]
The right hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in that statement. I am sure he will agree with me when I point out that the very statement he made has been discussed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Rex v. Abramovitch. The right hon. Gentleman left out one most important word—"recently." The words "recently stolen" make all the difference in the world.

Sir J. SIMON: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman's memory does not serve him correctly. As a matter of fact, I inserted the word "recently," I think in consequence of an observation made at the time by the hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton).

Mr. FLEMING: It is not a question of the right hon. Gentleman suffering any correction from me; it is the OFFICIAL REPORT that needs correcting.

Sir J. SIMON: It very often does.

Mr. FLEMING: That is why I said I was present listening to the right hon. Gentleman, but 'as I was sitting behind him and did not hear very well what he said, I read the OFFICIAL REPORT, which is as I have quoted. It is because of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks on the possible interpretation of this Subsection in the courts that I am supporting the Amendment moved by the hon. and learned Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), so that it should be made clear what the word "adherent" means. Otherwise there will be once again the possibility that the magistrates—not the High Courts, for I have great reliance on High Court judgments; it is with the magistrates that the trouble begins—will have difficulty with such words as "adherent." The meaning of the word ought to be more clearly defined.

8.28 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The hon. and learned Gentleman who supported the Amendment, and who is adjacent to but, I think, not an adherent of the hon. Member who moved it, laid particular stress on the question as to whether it might be possible to define more precisely the word "adherent." My right hon. Friend has been considering that point

in connection with an Amendment which is on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn). I do not say that I am authorised to give any undertaking on his behalf concerning those words, but we appreciate the point that there are grounds for, at any rate, seriously considering them. Let me tell the Committee at once that the trouble is that if one starts to define one may produce a state of affairs which somebody can get round, although it may be found possible to produce a form of words which might not be open to this objection. We realise the considerable force of the arguments of those who wish us to be as precise as possible.
I would like to say a few words about this Sub-section. Some objections will be removed by the Amendment which my right hon. Friend has on the Paper. I will not go into the question as to what would have been or might have been the effect of the Clause without that Amendment. but let the Committee remember that by the Sub-sections of the Clause which have already been passed it has decided that it shall be an offence to control or manage an association organised in a certain way. That places upon the prosecution the duty of satisfying the court on two different grounds. First of all the prosecution has to show—assuming, of course, that the Act is contravened—that the defendant is in control or management of an association. Secondly, the prosecution has to show, that the association is organised and controlled in a certain way. It seems to me quite fair to say that the normal evidence of training or equipping would be not evidence of things done or of words written, spoken or published in the presence of the controlling man who sits in an office while the people are being organised up and down the country, but the evidence normally would be of things done or of words written, spoken or published otherwise than in his presence.
I am not quite certain that, without this Sub-section, having regard to the nature of the offence created, one could not have put forward a very strong argument for a submission that this evidence ought to be admitted and that the strict rule ought not to be applied. If the strict rule is to be applied—and I think the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot) more or


less agreed with this—it would make the task of the prosecution impossible. In general, I think it is agreed that some such Sub-section as this is necessary. The hon. Gentleman went on to suggest that it might be limited in some way so as to exclude the chance word and admit statements for which the defendant could properly be held liable. This Subsection merely deals with admissibility, but naturally in any proceedings the prosecution has to put forward evidence of weight and value, and show that it is evidence which can be so related to the defendant as to convince the jury that it was entitled to rely on it. The Committee must surely proceed on the basis that the evidence will not be acted on by any court unless the evidence had relevance to the issue before the court. If the hon. Member would like to try his hand at a wording, I would certainly consider it; but I find it difficult to imagine any form of words which would cover the suggestion he put forward, that is to say, which would include as admissible utterances for which the party in question might fairly be held liable, but exclude the chance word. That is exactly the type of matter which must be dealt with, when the evidence has been given, by the court, whose duty it is to assign proper value to it. For those reasons I suggest to the Committee that the Amendment should be rejected.

8.35 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: There is a big question of principle behind this Amendment. At present a large number of hindrances stand in the way of proving a criminal offence against any person, and when the Attorney-General says that it would be almost impossible to get a conviction without this Sub-section, the answer is that nearly all such proceedings in England are carried out now in circumstances in which any foreign jurist would say that it was impossible to get a conviction. Yet we do get convictions and it is important that we should not slip as we seem to be slipping, more and more easily and more and more deeply, into the view that anything which helps the police to get a conviction or helps the Government to get what they want is necessarily what is called "a good thing." We want to be careful about that. In this case I suggest that there is

more in the point which has been raised than the. Attorney-General thinks, because the words of the Sub-section would cover the idle boastings of partially intoxicated young men in a cafe of what they had done or proposed to do to somebody in the name of some particular "ism" which they were supporting. I would rather see the Sub-section go altogether, but if I am not out of order I would suggest to the Attorney-General an alternative wording. I have not, I say frankly, given it much consideration, but some such words as these might be a solution:
In any criminal or civil proceedings under this section proof of things done or of words written, spoken or published by the members or adherents of an association when acting in pursuance of the purposes of the said organisation,
etc., or something of that sort. I always mistrust my own draftsmanship and generally everybody else's, but I think something of that sort might meet the case. Even as the Sub-section would then stand it would leave one open to the difficulty—and it is not imaginary—of some police spy or agent provocateur being professedly a member or adherent of an organisation and saying or doing something in order to procure the conviction of certain persons for offences of which those inventing the evidence believed them to be guilty. There are people who would think it quite proper to employ such means to convict people who, in their opinion, ought to be convicted. As to the word "adherent" I hope the Government will be able to find a better one. It is necessary to have some word as the Attorney-General said to avoid the word "member" being evaded. I have sought in my own limited mental range for a better word and I have not yet found any, but I gather that the Attorney-General, without giving any undertaking on the matter, thinks that he may be able later on to find another word.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL: The suggestion which my right hon. Friend is considering is 'that something might be put in to make the word clearer, on the lines of the Amendment which appears later on the Paper in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn)—in page 3, line 14, at end, insert:
For the purposes of this section the expression 'adherent of an association'


shall mean any person who acts in cooperation with an association or with its members as such, or whose support is accepted by it.

Mr. PRITT: The only remark I would make on that is that if the Attorney-General or somebody else does find suitable words, I hope they will, on the Report stage, put them in at the beginning and not at the end, because the word "adherent" occurs earlier.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. KELLY: I hope that this Subsection will go out. One feels concerned not so much on account of the association which appears to be in everybody's mind in this connection, but on account of wider considerations. I notice that throughout these discussions one organisation, whose members wear a particular costume, seems always to be before us but there are other organisations whose work is partly political and partly industrial and those organisations might be made responsible under this Sub-section for things done by an individual or a few individuals. We know the kind of thing which has happened in the past. People have attached themselves to trade unions and have done things and have written, spoken and published things, during times of trouble and because they happened to be associated for a short period with an organisation, the whole of that organisation has been held to blame. Whatever may be thought at this moment the Bill is going to have a wider application than the Fascist organisation and I can realise from the speeches of some hon. Members that they have a great many other organisations in their minds. I also object to the Sub-section on account of the difficulties to which it will give rise. I cannot understand how this word "adherent" is to be defined. I have heard hon. Members who belong to the legal fraternity discussing it and I can imagine that persons who had been associated with an organisation, perhaps for a period of days or weeks, and who were determined to injure that organisation would find little difficulty under this Sub-section in proving in the courts that they were adherents of that organisation. The organisation would then be made responsible for what those people had done, written, spoken or published even

if it was unknown to the majority of the members. I hope the Amendment will be carried.

8.43 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: I am very much surprised that the doughty fighter who is at the moment the leader of the Socialist party in the House, the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt) should have surrendered so completely and so suddenly the views which are represented by the Amendment on the Paper. He is one of the vice-presidents of the National Council for Civil Liberties which has said, regarding this Sub-section, that they are amazed at its inclusion in the Bill.

Mr. FOOT: Speaking as another vice-president of the organisation referred to, may I ask the hon. Member whether it is not a fact that the document from which he is quoting was issued before this Amendment had been put upon the Paper?

Mr. TURTON: I feel sure that the hon. Member is correct, but if he will bear with me while I make my argument, I was about to say—

Mr. PRITT: I may have been very obscure in what I said, but I certainly did not intend to inform the Committee that I supported this Sub-section. I supported the Amendment for its removal and I do not see why the hon. Member should seek to bring up in evidence against me words written, spoken or published by members and adherents of the National Council for Civil Liberties.

Mr. TURTON: To interpose the defence before the case for the prosecution has been completed is not the practice in our courts, although the hon. Members opposite are now indulging in it, but I hasten to say that I would be quite willing to be in the dock with them on this charge, because I do not like this Sub-section at all. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for North Hammersmith made it appear, to those who were not attending too closely to his remarks at any rate, that he would be quite agreeable if the Government just altered the words to suit a little bit of drafting of his own, which would make very little difference.
I ask the Attorney-General to go into this Sub-section much more closely. I think he has made the case for its retention in some form and that if he wants


to prove that persons are so "organised, or trained, or equipped," he may give evidence of things done, even although the leaders, managers, or controllers of that organisation were not present, but I cannot see any justification for "words…spoken," where they are spoken by chance or in pursuance of the objects of the organisation. That is a doctrine quite hostile to our principles of criminal law, and I do not think it is necessary, in order to get a conviction, to use that very great power of using the words spoken by any speaker at any meeting to prove that the leader was organising and training his followers in a certain way.
I hope this Sub-section will be used, when it is used, only when the offence is being most flagrantly committed, and the evidence that will be given will be evidence of drilling and training at the headquarters of the organisation, and there will be no need to go into Hyde Park and listen to what a speaker at a meeting of Communists or Fascists is saying to bring evidence against the leader of either of those organisations. I ask the Attorney-General not to keep this Sub-section in its full force, but to retain the words that he wants of proof of things done and to leave out the words "written, spoken, or published." If then he finds that he has not enough power, he can in a later Bill come here and ask for this great breach of the principles of the criminal law, of which we are very proud and which we do not want to have taken away.

8.49 p.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I would like the Attorney-General to withdraw this Subsection, and I think he should understand, from what has already been said, that it is a very dangerous Sub-section indeed to introduce into the law of this country. I would like to direct attention to a speech that was made earlier in the evening, when an hon. Member opposite quoted someone who alleged in Hyde Park that he was a Communist, and who said that he had the intention at some future period of cutting the throats of a variety of Members of the Government Front Bench.

Mr. TURTON: He included the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George)—one of your leaders.

Mr. GALLACHER: I want to ask the Lord Advocate whether he can conceive of such an appalling situation as that I could be brought into the dock and charged with the intention, on some particular occasion, of cutting the throat of the right hon. Member for Carnarvon Boroughs (Mr. Lloyd George) or of any other Member of this House. I might put them in the dock if I had the opportunity, but I would not cut their throats, and I want to say that this man, whoever he was, could not possibly have been a member of the Communist party, because he would have been excluded immediately for using such language. But he does not have to be a member. He can say he is an adherent, whatever that may mean. He can claim that he is a general of the Communist army, which does not exist, and under this Sub-section it is possible for the leader of the Communist party to be taken up as a result. It is quite easy, in certain circumstances at any rate, to get a jury to find a verdict of guilty against him, no matter what the evidence is worth. I have had some experience of that.
But there is another thing. In the general discussion on this Bill, I drew attention to this Clause and mentioned particular cases. Take the man Johnson, who was in the working-class movement and was being paid by representatives of Scotland Yard. [An HON. MEMBER: "What is the working-class movement"] Trade unions, unemployed workers' organisations, the Labour party, the Co-operatives, the Communist party—a whole variety of organisations. He was in a number of different organisations, and he was supplying information at so much per week, but he was not getting satisfactory information, so he wrote up what were alleged to be speeches made at particular meetings. Here was a man who was prepared to use his imagination to write up reports of meetings that never took place and reports of things that were never said. It may be that I or someone else would be addressing a meeting somewhere, and he would write up what I or that someone else said, although he was not present.
Because of the fact that the authorities were continually driving at him to get more and better, greater, or more lurid information, that man Johnson was driven to commit suicide. He went down


to Brighton, and he left a note explaining that he was committing suicide, and then finished himself. His wife went to the "Yard" and tried to get compensation from them, but they knew nothing about it. Here is an actual case of a man being forced to fabricate evidence, and if they can force a man to do that, and make him liable to suicide in the process, is it not possible that they can force a man in the working-class movement to go on the platform and make all kinds of wild statements? How can we be held responsible for anyone who does that?
It may be that on an ordinary Labour party, or trade union, or Co-operative, or Communist platform someone may get up and make some wild utterance, and you hold the leaders of the Co-operative movement, or the Labour party, or the trade union, or the Communist party responsible. On Tory party platforms they can make some of the fiercest utterances, but it is always against unfortunate people in the Colonies, and no action can be taken against them. They can use the most bloodthirsty and violent language against Colonial people, and it is not sedition, but under this Sub-section I tell the Lord Advocate that the most vicious and pernicious developments could be encouraged in this country, developments that I am certain even those hon. Members opposite who still have any regard for the governing principles of democracy—which are so often talked about but, by many of those Members, so often spat upon—would never tolerate.
The retention of this Sub-section could never be justified from my point of view, but from the point of view of the Lord Advocate it could only be justified if it referred to words written, spoken or published in official statements or publications. Even that would be bad, but it would be better than the words of the existing Sub-section. Another way would be to confine it to proof of things done and leave out reference to words written, spoken or published. It would, however, be much better for the Bill and for the legal position in this country if the Subsection were left out altogether. If it is passed in anything like its present form there will develop in this country something which has not been very evident before, namely, continual corruption in all matters affecting the courts.

8.57 p.m.

Mr. DAVID ADAMS: I am glad to support the deletion of this Sub-section. I am satisfied that it does not affect a trade union as such, because Clause 1 makes it clear that the organisation must be of a military or semi-military character organised for specific purposes. The Subsection, however, is a repudiation of the English law. We are to make a person responsible not merely for the acts which he has committed or authorised, but for statements or words written, spoken or published by other people of whom he has no knowledge. That is a change in the law which might, and probably would, be used with great hardship.
The Clause introduces the word "adherents." It is a dangerous word. An adherent may be a person who is merely listening in a meeting, but who went for the purpose of damaging the cause and securing the dissolution of the organisation. He may have subscribed nothing towards it and it may be his first meeting, but he determines that he will use all the methods available to him to secure the dissolution of the organisation. The promoters of the meeting and the leaders of the organisation may know nothing of the individual, and the onus of proof that he is not an adherent remains upon the accused. It is an unjust position, and places the accused in a difficulty from which it would be impossible for him to extricate himself. It places the accused person at a disadvantage contrary to English law. If evidence is to be given against any organisation, the person giving it ought to he an actual subscribing member. Otherwise, any person desiring its dissolution can achieve this in the way suggested in the Clause.

9.1 p.m.

Sir PERCY HARRIS: I realise the Government's difficulty. My attitude towards this Bill is to try to facilitate its progress, because I realise that we are up against a tough proposition. My hon. Friend who moved the Amendment attaches great importance to the principle behind the Sub-section. We think that the Government should reconsider the drafting, for there is a real danger that it will go against the whole spirit of civil liberties and create a precedent. It may not do it in this particular Bill, but once it is embodied in our Statute law it will be liable to serious abuse. Therefore, I suggest that the Lord


Advocate should give an undertaking to redraft the Sub-section in order to meet the real criticisms that have been made from all sides of the Committee. Perhaps for the first time all four parties are agreed—Conservative, Liberal, Labour and Communist—an almost exceptional phalanx of persuasion. I therefore suggest that the Lord Advocate should give an undertaking that, if we do not press the Amendment to a Division, he will redraft the Sub-section.

9.3 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: The Committee are aware that certain Amendments in the phrasing of this Sub-section were proposed by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and during the last half-hour we have had the benefit of a number of suggestions—I do not hesitate to say valuable suggestions—from various quarters, including the hon. and learned Member for North Hammersmith (Mr. Pritt). I readily accept the suggestion of the hon. Member for Smith-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) that the sole purpose upon which we are all engaged is, by our joint efforts, to secure an effective result. Accordingly, I shall unhesitatingly undertake to confer with my right hon. Friend in the light of the discussion which has taken place to see whether between now and the Report stage effect can be given to one or other of the suggestions that have been put forward, or to some combination of them, with a view to meeting the criticisms which have been made. I hope that that undertaking will satisfy hon. Members and will avoid the necessity for a Division.
At the same time I should like to stress, what was said by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that some of the fears expressed during the discussion as to the extent of the change in the law effected by this Sub-section are really exaggerated, because the Subsection is concerned neither with the onus of proof nor with the fundamental principles of criminal law, but solely with the admissibility of a certain type of evidence which might otherwise be ruled out altogether. But I do not propose to go further into that, and I shall, if the Committee pleases, leave the matter upon the basis that the useful discussion which has taken place

may, between now and the Report stage, enable the object which this Sub-section is designed to achieve to be attained in a more thoroughly satisfactory manner. In the light of that undertaking I would humbly suggest to the hon. Member who moved the Amendment that he should not press it.

Mr. FOOT: I thank the Lord Advocate for the way in which he has met the views which have been expressed, and on the basis of his undertaking that this matter will be thoroughly reconsidered and an attempt made to redraft the Subsection before the Report stage, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

9.7 p.m.

The LORD ADVOCATE: I beg to move, in page 3, line 8, to leave out "persons appearing to be."
This Amendment, which stands in the name of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the consequential Amendment in the next line of the Bill, have already, I think, been adequately discussed in the course of our arguments on this Sub-section, and accordingly with only that reference to it, I formally move the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 3, line 9, leave out from "shall" to "be," in line 11.—[The Lord Advocate.]

9.9 p.m.

Mr. PICKTHORN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 14, at the end, to insert:
For the purposes of this Section the expression adherent of an association ' shall mean any person who acts in co-operation with an association or with its members as such, or whose support is accepted by it.
I hope I shall not be too far out of order if, as one who tried to draft Amendments to some extent in the same sense as those we have just passed, I express gratitude to the Home Secretary for those Amendments. As regards the Amendment I am now moving, I cannot feel any particular pride of parentage over its particular form of words, but I think it is clear that there are some words which cannot be defined but which express things which must be dealt with. It is equally clear that the smaller the number of such undefined words the more accurate will be the drafting of legislation, and that if we must agree that words


like "political," for instance, can hardly be defined, it is all the more necessary that we should make some attempt to define the word "adherent." I do not suggest that it cannot be better defined than it is here defined, but I do venture humbly to hope that some such definition as this might improve the whole of the Clause in which the word occurs.

9.10 p.m.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I quite appreciate the intentions of the hon. Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) and I think they are very reasonable, and, subject to making certain, after careful examination, that his words really have the effect that he wishes, I will agree to accept them.

9.11 p.m.

Mr. PRITT: I would like to add a word of warning. As I have mentioned before, this word has worried hon. and right hon. Members on this side of the House. We have felt that the real difficulty about the word "adherent" is that it implies somebody who attaches himself to an association, whereas what is really aimed at is somebody who is attached to an association in the sense that the association accepts him. We are not very happy about it in any shape or form. Where the expression "adherent" means:
Any person who acts in co-operation with an association or with its members as such,
we suggest that that really does very little to help us. The words:
whose support is accepted by it
are rather more welcome to us, and we would feel moderately happy with "adherent" meaning a person whose support is accepted by an association, although that is rather an upside-down way of defining it. Therefore, we are rather unhappy; but if the Junior Burgess for Cambridge University (Mr. Pickthorn) can take any comfort from the fact that he has succeeded in getting a definition that I, with all my efforts, had not succeeded in finding, I am sure he is welcome to it.

9.13 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: We had a previous assurance from the Lord Advocate with regard to this Sub-section, and I thought

it covered the point in connection with this Amendment, which I hope will also be reconsidered by the Government when they are seeking to produce some new form of words to try to satisfy Parliament. I did not take part in the last discussion, because I regarded the assurance of the Lord Advocate as satisfactory. I think the Government are aware of the misgivings in the minds of hon. Members in all parts of the Committee regarding the definition of "adherent," and I hope that they will seek to meet us.

Amendment agreed to.

9.14 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 3, line 15, to leave out Subsection (5).
This question of the extension of the right of search of premises came before the House on the Sedition Bill, and my hon. Friends on that occasion had something to do with the alteration of the words in that Measure. I think the provision that a Judge of the High Court has to be satisfied before the right of search is given was the outcome of an Amendment moved by the members of my own party. But though that Amendment was accepted it did not wholly satisfy us; we would prefer that this extension should not be given. I think the powers to be taken here to go to premises and search any individual on the premises, go too far. As I said on a previous Amendment, the Clause appears to be very much wider in its application than many hon. Members seem to realise. A great deal has been said about the judges having to decide the meaning of the words. It is certainly not what is said in this House or what the Government intend that matters. Very often the court takes a different view from that which was the intention when the law was passing through this House.
This paragraph appears to be so wide in scope that I foresee dangers in the future, in connection with the right of search. An Amendment of ours, which was not called, made reference to picketing during a time of industrial dispute. An industrial dispute may arise out of a desire by trade unionists to strike for, say, the abolition of the means test, and that action might be treated as having a political object, and paragraph (b) might be applied to it. The premises of the trade union would then be searched under


the Clause. I am anxious that as much precaution as possible should be taken at this stage and I would like to have an assurance from the Government on the matter. So far as our organisation is concerned, if the proposals of the Government were interpreted by the courts as the Government intend, I would not have any misgivings. I do not think my organisation would take steps to bring us under the operation of Clause 2, but I do not trust the courts. Very often when political passion becomes excited and economic disputes become acute, repercussions such as those which resulted from the stoppage of 1926 take place, and then a Measure such as the one we are now discussing might he brought into operation.

9.18 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The hon. Member said what he had to say very moderately and briefly, and I share in his desire that we should not pass words unless we are sure that they say what we mean. He was expressing the feeling of many others besides himself. If the Clause could be effectively enforced without the right of search, that would be another matter, but it is no use passing legislation of this sort unless we arm the responsible authorities with every power to put themselves into a position to enforce it, if the facts warrant. If there is any question as to the purposes for which members of an association are organised, that may be generally ascertained by the right, under proper restrictions, to examine what is to be found at their headquarters.
I suggest that we should not regard Sub-section (5) with a prejudiced eye because of the controversies which were raised upon the earlier Measure to which the hon. Gentleman referred; we must look at it in reference to its subject-matter. I cannot see anything in Subsection (5) which is unreasonable. The hon. Gentleman said very fairly that the authorities usually act with proper care and impartiality. I would remind hon. Members that a Judge of the High Court has to be satisfied that the conditions as here laid down are observed. If that is not going to secure impartiality, nothing on earth will, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree, on reflection, that that is the right authority upon which to put this matter. The judge has to be satisfied, after information on oath, that there is present, not one of the elements

to build up the offence, but all the elements, and that there is reasonable ground for suspecting that the offence under this Clause has been committed. He has to be satisfied that the evidence of it is likely to be found on the premises specified, or headquarters—[An HON. MEMBER "Or a house"]—or it might conceivably be a house. The warrant has to be applied for not by an ordinary officer of police but by an officer of higher rank, and the search warrant is issued for only a limited period of time.
Hon. Members have to decide whether they mean Clause 2 to be one which can be operated or one that cannot be operated. I have no more liking, in the abstract, for any authority, even judicial authority, to enter other people's premises, than has any other hon. Member, and I agree that we should watch the exercise of this power very narrowly; but it is no use making provisions of this sort unless we at the same time provide the machinery which is necessary to carry them into effect. Without the least desire to use that power as a pretext for quite different kinds of legislation in the future, and looking at the object of this Clause, this seems, in the circumstances, to be a necessary provision to make. We must look at it very narrowly, but we must see that authority is not given to those outside this House in a way which might possibly interfere with the exercise of individual liberty. Hon. Members will appreciate that these words have been put in the improved form which, the hon. Member rightly said, was secured as a result of action by critics upon a previous occasion, and I hope that they will feel that this is a satisfactory form of words.

9.24 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: It is true that the form of words here included is strangely familiar to some of us who spent a considerable time upon a former occasion, to which reference has been made, in securing the safeguards of the Judge of the High Court, the Inspector of Police, and the rest of it. There is still one feature of the Clause to which some of us take exception, and that is the inclusion of the right of personal search. I have upon the paper two Amendments, which I understand are not being called, and which were designed to delete the right to search people who have not been


arrested and whose only offence is that they have been found on the premises to which the search warrant applies. I think I am right in saying that in the great majority of cases where provision is made for a search warrant in our Statute law there is no such right of personal search. In the ordinary way a police officer can search anybody after he has arrested him, but not before, and one of the objections which we took to a similar Clause to this in the Incitement to Disaffection Act was the provision put in which gave the right to a police officer to search anyone he might find on premises whether or not he had any connection with the possible offenders or whatever he might be doing on the premises.
Take an extreme case. If the headquarters of some political organisation were entered and searched under this provision and there were some workmen inside, brought in to repair or paper the rooms and who had no sort of connection with the organisation, even they would be liable to personal search under the terms of this Sub-section. It would be unfortunate if we were to follow in this respect the precedent set by the Incitement to Disaffection Act and were to make it almost a habit in this House that whenever we put a. search warrant Clause into a Statute this right to personal search without arrest should be included. If a constable wishes to search a man he should be prepared to arrest him, because he cannot arrest him without reason. This Clause enables him to search people without having any proper grounds for suspicion. He can conduct, as it were, a rolling search in the hope that he may find something to justify the action taken. Even if the search warrant Clause goes through—and I agree that there are good reasons for putting in such a Clause in this Bill —I hope that this Clause giving the right of persona/ search will be dropped.

9.28 p.m.

Mr. H. MORRISON: I listened very carefully to the hon. Member who moved this Amendment and the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot), but I am bound to say that I find myself in substantial sympathy with the view expressed by the Home Secretary. We must face what we are dealing with in this matter. We are not dealing with an ordinary political party, but an

organisation, whatever it is—we do not want to give it a name—of exceptional character. It is not a political party in the sense that we understand it in this House. I do not take the view that this section is applicable to a trade union. In my judgment the wording of the Sub-section covers activity in which no trade union would be likely to engage, and if it did—I want to be frank —it would be wrong. The kind of organisation visualised here is one which, as far as its internal, domestic affairs are concerned, is secret. Its finances are secret, both in their origin and disbursement. It is not controlled by its members, but by a dictatorial oligarchy. Therefore, it is capable of doing things which are conspiracies against the State and our democratic liberties without anyone outside the organisation, or even the larger body of members inside the organisation, being aware of it. It may be the policy or decision of one man or of a. limited number of men. In these circumstances if evidence is believed to exist in the offices of the organisation or the private house of the dictatorial chief of that organisation, if we want the menace dealt with we must not boggle at the authorities having the power of search.
If we make serious Amendments in this Sub-section, we shall make the section as a whole inoperative. We shall make it impossible for the authorities to enforce it, and I would beg of hon. Members who agree with us in wanting this menace dealt with, not to weaken the Sub-section so that it is impossible for the police and other authorities to enforce it. The hon. Member for Dundee raised the right of search of individuals, on the face of it not too happy a thing, but if the vital documents in the matter are transferred from a safe or filing cabinet to their own pockets, when the persons concerned are apprehensive that the police are coming, it is going to be a farce if the police cannot get those documents and that information. The whole purpose of the search has gone. This Sub-section goes to the root of the matter. Do we want this Bill to be effective or not? Do we want it to be framed in such a way as to deal with Fascists or anybody else who want to upset the constitutional liberties of this State by force or conspiracy, with the aid of money got from abroad?

Mr. FOOT: The right hon. Gentleman has been raising the question of personal search. He is in favour of that provision remaining in. As I endeavoured to point out to the Committee, we tried to strike out those words from the Incitement to Disaffection Bill. On that occasion the whole of his party supported us. Why was it right to strike out those words in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and not to strike them out here?

Mr. MORRISON: It may well be right. I was not in the House at the time, but I think my hon. Friends were generally opposed to the Sedition Act. They would like to have defeated the whole Bill, and probably with very good reason. It may well be that we do not like the right of personal search in one Bill, but when you are dealing with an organisation which is something in the nature of a secret conspiracy against the constitutional liberties of the State, you may take another view. The hon. Member smiles, but if hon. Members are to be governed in what they do on this Bill according to what they did on another Bill, that is not proper examination of legislation. This legislation has been introduced in the face of certain circumstances, and I am bound to tell the Committee that I will be no party to making it ineffective. I say with all earnestness and sincerity that if you leave out this Sub-section, and even the right to personal search you will make this section ineffective. The purpose of the Bill is to prevent the existence of political organisations organised in a military fashion on the lines of certain organisations abroad which have by their continued existence destroyed the liberties of whole nations.
Either we mean business about this Bill or we do not. I recall the words uttered by an hon. and learned Member opposite on the Second Reading. He said that if we are going to have this Bill, it must be effective for its purpose. Those who are conspiring against the constitutional liberties of the people will inevitably be looking out for every avenue to evade the provisions of the Bill. If we provide means by which they can evade the provisions of the Bill, the Act of Parliament will become a farce, and there will thereby have been inflicted, not a grave humiliation upon His Majesty's Government in introducing the Bill, but a

humiliation upon the House of Commons for having tried to deal with a menace, which is a very real menace, to the liberties of the British people. If that happens, and Parliamentary proceedings and Parliamentary enactments are made a farce, I warn hon. Members that it may be a long time before we shall get this problem properly dealt with. Therefore, although naturally this is a provision which we should not run after, it is a provision which no one would run after if they could help it, the issue before the Committee is whether this Section is going to be effective for its purpose or not. For my part, and I hope it is the view of my hon. Friends, I want it to be effective for its purpose of dealing with the situation with which we are faced, and in these circumstances I must definitely advise my hon. Friends not to support the Amendment which has been moved.

9.37 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I have listened to the discussion with great interest, but I am not at all convinced. The point was made by the right hon. Gentleman that this Bill was introduced for a specific purpose; he said he would not mention the particular organisation that he had in mind. That makes us realise that we have to ask ourselves whether it is only going to deal with a particular organisation. It has been said again and again, it has been said by Members of the Government, that they are not dealing with a particular organisation, but with the general position, and I feel that in dealing with the general position we have to see that the ordinary working-class movement is not afterwards to be made the victim of legislation which, in the minds of so many Members, was aimed at a particular political organisation in this country. The whole question hinges upon whether there is one particular organisation which is being dealt with in the Bill or not. I submit that that is not the case—that the Government have been quite straight and honest in stating that they are dealing with the general situation, that they are not striking at one particular organisation but seeking to secure the general position; and I can see the present Government's attempt to secure the general position having very harmful consequences to the working-class movement. It has happened with so much of past legislation, and that is


what I had in view in moving this Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

9.40 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I beg to move, in page 3, line 32, at the end, to add:
Provided that no woman shall, in pursuance of a warrant issued under this Subsection, he searched except by a woman.
This is a proviso which was inserted in the Incitement to Disaffection Bill, and it was inserted with the agreement, I think, of all the Members of the Committee upstairs who considered that Bill. There was some dispute as to whether it was necessary, but I think it was thought better on that occasion to be on the cautious side and put in this safeguard. As it was inserted there, I respectfully suggest that it might be put in here.

9.41 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: We accept this Amendment, but I think I ought to say that it represents what is already the police practice in this country, and it would be a pity if it were thought that it had to be inserted specially. Indeed, I think it is rather a, pity that it was inserted in the earlier Act, but it is a perfectly reasonable proposition in itself, and it is interesting to me to find the hon. Member getting up to vindicate as far as may be the scheme of the Incitement to Disaffection Act.

Mr. FOOT: I have only moved an Amendment which on that occasion was agreed to by the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

9.42 p.m.

Sir I. ALBERY: Before parting with Clause 2, I want to ask the Home Secretary if he will give us some explanation of the difference in wording between paragraphs (a) and (b) of Subsection (1). Paragraph (a) reads:
organised or trained or equipped for the purpose of enabling them to be employed in usurping the functions of the police….
Paragraph (b) says:
organised and trained or organised and equipped.
It occurs to me that it would be perfectly competent for a body of persons to be organised for the particular purposes which the Sub-section is designed

to prevent, without being either trained or equipped. If anyone organises a body of roughs to go and do the particular thing which this Sub-section would prevent, they have not necessarily to train or equip them beforehand. I was hoping that, before we pass from the Clause, we might have some explanation of the difference in wording between the two paragraphs.

9.43 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: My hon. Friend will perhaps recall, or perhaps he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT if he was not here, that on the Second Reading I did explain this difference. Let me just state it in a couple of sentences, in answer to his inquiry. I agree that the distinction to which he calls attention is important, and should be understood. The Committee, of course, will see, and my hon. Friend will see, that what paragraph (a) strikes at is not limited to organisations which have a political object; it is a broad provision. In paragraph (b), however, a special case is dealt with, the case of organisation for the use or display of physical force in promoting any political object. We have to be careful that we do not open our net so wide under paragraph (b) as to catch cases that we do not really intend to penalise. For instance, in paragraph (b) the Committee has already passed the words of lines 14 to 17, under which an offence may be committed if it is shown that the manner is such as to arouse reasonable apprehension that they are organised and either trained or equipped for that purpose. I think that that provision was generally approved on the Second Reading by the House, and the Committee has now passed the words. It seemed to us that, if you were going to catch people in certain events by proving reasonable apprehension, that was a condition which could not fairly be applied unless there was not only organisation, but also training or equipment, and it was, therefore, quite deliberately that we put in the word "and" in paragraph (b), and the word "or" in paragraph (a). If my hon. Friend will look at the report of our proceedings on the Second Reading, he will find that I explained the matter then, and I think the Committee will generally appreciate why the distinction was drawn.

CLAUSE 3.—(Powers for the preservation of public order on the occasion, of processions.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. K. GRIFFITH: I beg to move, in page 3, line 33, to leave out "is of opinion," and to insert "reasonably apprehends."
The first Sub-section of this Clause gives the immediate powers which the chief officer of police exercises entirely on his own discretion, while Sub-sections (2) and (3) give the long-term policy, where measures are taken which restrict the right of procession much more radically and for a more extended period. There is a necessary supplementary Amendment on line 37, to leave out "there is ground for apprehending that." This may seem a very small matter because all that we are trying to do is to take out the words" ground for apprehending "in one part of the Clause and putting them in in another, but there is a very great deal of difference, because if you start with the words
If the chief officer of police is of opinion,
that is entirely a matter which, in whatever form it is tested, can only be settled by one piece of evidence, and that is the word of the chief officer himself. If he says he is of opinion, no one on earth can give evidence to show that he is not of that opinion. If he says there is ground for apprehending, there is nothing more to be said about it, but if you take the words "reasonable apprehension" and put them in the first line, and if he reasonably apprehends, having regard to all the circumstances, that the procession may occasion serious public disorder, you have a proposition which can be tested and which does not depend on the mere ipse dixit of the chief officer of police himself. It can be tested whether there is or is not reasonable ground for apprehension.
Although I appreciate that we are dealing with emergency powers—and I think a chief officer of police will always endeavour to act reasonably—we must take care that in passing in a moment of stress legislation like this, we do not give

powers which can and might be abused. We are in these matters always looking for the exceptional case. We, as the House of Commons, and as the guardians of the liberty of the subject and of the ordinary methods of expressing political opinions, have to see now that we do not give powers which can and may be abused. Whereas in the two following Sub-sections there are various fences which the order has to get over in this one there is none at all. In the other Sub-sections we have the chief officer of police making an application to the council and the council passing a resolution and getting the consent of the Secretary of State. There are all sorts of safeguards. Even in London, where we do not seem to consider so many safeguards necessary, there are both the Commissioner of the City of London Police and the Home Secretary who have to give their consent. Because a power is being given to an executive officer without any further test or obstacle we suggest that this form of words might be substituted in order that there may be some means, not often exercised I dare-say, not often needing to be exercised, of testing for the arbitrary use of the necessary powers which the Sub-section gives.

9.50 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I think the point raised by my hon. Friend is a perfectly fair one. He made an observation to this effect on the Second Reading and the Government have been considering his comment in the interval. It is one with which in principle I sympathise, and I agree with him that the words might be usefully modified, though I am not quite sure that the actual form of the Amendment is the best. If my hon. Friend moves to leave out the words "is of opinion" and then omits "that there is ground for apprehending "and substitutes" has reasonable ground for apprehending," I shall be prepared to accept that.

Mr. GALLACHER: Will not the proposal to delete Sub-section (1) come up for discussion at all?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne): It is obvious that a discussion on the Amendment to leave out Sub-section (1) will not come on. The Question that the Clause, whether amended or not, stand part of the Bill, I am bound to put at the end of the discussion.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause," put, and negatived.

Question proposed, "That those words be there inserted."

Sir J. SIMON: On a point of Order. It is at this point that I suggest striking out those three words so that the Clause runs:
If the chief officer of police, having regard to the time or place at which and the circumstances in which any procession is taking place or is intended to take place and to the route taken or proposed to be taken by the procession has reasonable ground for apprehending.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I quite appreciate that but the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that the Amendment was moved in the form I have put. I assumed that the Committee would negative the words "is of opinion" and again negative the words "reasonably apprehends."

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Amendment made, In page 3, line 37, leave out the words "that there is," and insert "has reasonable."—[Sir J. Simon.]

9.54 p.m.

Sir W. DAVISON: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, at the end, to insert:
and conditions prohibiting the display of banners or emblems likely to provoke a breach of the peace.
It will not be necessary to trouble the House long with the Amendment on the Paper. I am glad to say that the Government have agreed to an Amendment in practically identical terms. The only difference, I understand, is the addition, after the word "prohibiting," of "restricting," and the addition of the word "flags" to "banners and emblems." I should like to emphasise the fact that this is not a Uniforms Bill but a Public Order Bill, nor is it a Bill aimed at any special political organisation. Many Members, especially those on the Socialist benches, appear to assume that it is aimed at one particular organisation. It is very valuable that the Government have agreed to the Amendment which deals with public processions, and that the matters to which I have alluded are to be taken into consideration. It would be very unfortunate if the public thought that the

Bill was aimed at a particular organisation. The object of the Bill is to prevent public disorder of whatever kind. If in one part of the country public disorder may be occasioned because it is considered that some kind of military clothing will cause provocation or a breach of the peace, so it should equally be provided, as it will be by this Amendment, that in other parts of the country where provocative emblems or banners are likely to cause a breach of the peace, the matter should be dealt with by the Bill. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

9.57 p.m.

Mr. E. SMITH: We would be lacking in our duty on this side of the Committee unless we made some observations with regard to this Amendment being accepted by the Government. We have been told that the main object of the Bill is to safeguard our democratic rights in this country. These democratic rights have been won by the people at great sacrifice. In the district in which I was born the right to vote was won by a great sacrifice. On that occasion 11 people were killed and 600 were wounded in the demonstration which took place in Manchester demanding the right to vote for the common people of this country. If the Government accept this Amendment it will be the beginning of the undermining of our democratic rights. If our own Front Bench will give attention to the serious question we are discussing, I was saying that the democratic rights were won in this great country by great sacrifice. It is no mere talking that has brought us to our present position. It has been the right of the people to demonstrate in this country and to demand that their legitimate grievances should be reflected in this House and in other assemblies.
I have in mind one particular grievance which we have, and that is the operation of the means test among the people whom we represent in this House. A large number of hon. Members and right hon. Members opposite believe that the operation of the means test is justifiable. We believe that it is the most reactionary thing that has been done in this country within recent time. Therefore it is most important that we should maintain our democratic rights to go to the country with banner flying containing the words "Abolish the means test,"


and "Demonstrate against the means test," and we are of the opinion that to display a banner of that character is not provocative but maintains the democratic right which we have won in this country. The same sort of thing may apply to war and to the question of need for a 40-hour week. In France by constitutional methods they have been able to bring about a 40-hour week and we in this country are holding meetings and using our democratic rights and constitutional machinery in demanding a 40-hour week. If the Government accept the proposed Amendment it will enable certain police authorities where they may interpret the 40-hour week as provocative to prevent us from demonstrating. Therefore I hope that we on this side of the Committee and also hon. Members on the other side will join in saying that a dangerous proposal of this kind should not be inserted in the Bill and that we should have the right to demonstrate in the way we have done in the past.

10.1 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: It would assist the Committee if the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary would inform the Committee whether he agrees with the language used by the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), the Mover of the Amendment. I understood him to say that he was anxious to withdraw the Amendment on the ground that the right hon. Gentleman has promised to insert a form of words which will give a wider interpretation of the powers conferred upon the police in this matter. Will the right hon. Gentleman inform the Committee what is in his mind in regard to this matter?

10.3 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The Committee will perhaps be glad to know just how this matter appears to the Government to stand. What the hon. Gentleman opposite has asked is entirely reasonable. Earlier in the discussion to-day it was pointed out that the language in Clause 3 of the Bill—line 41, on page 3—was such as undoubtedly conferred upon the authorities the right in case of need to formulate conditions relating to the carrying of banners and the like; that is to say, the words:
such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order.

Obviously, these are words which might, in a necessary case, include that matter. I am not for one moment contending that they would in any case that one supposes, and as the hon. Gentleman opposite has asked me whether I approve of every word which came out of the mouth of my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison), I would only say here that I am concerned with the language of the Bill. But the Committee resisted a suggestion that we should bring into Clause 1, which is the uniforms Clause, some general prohibition of the use of banners. I resisted it because it did not seem to be that that was the proper way to do it. It would in my way of thinking be putting much too severe a restriction on the methods of demonstration. I was disposed to resist it in Clause 1. When we came to Clause 3, I pointed out that as far as the provisions were concerned there was no doubt that the language of Clause 3 would. in a proper case, really include the right to include this condition in reference to banners.
I was asked whether or not, when we came to Clause 3, we would be prepared to put in words to make it quite plain. I do not see any reason to object. What I contemplated—and this is the answer to the hon. Gentleman—was that it was not to include words in the form of those of my hon. Friend. I ask him to withdraw the Amendment so that I can move my Amendment. I propose that the Clause should read:
He may give directions imposing upon the persons organising or taking part in the procession such conditions as appear to him necessary for the preservation of public order, including conditions prescribing the route to be taken by the procession and conditions prohibiting the procession from entering any street or public place specified in the directions and conditions prohibiting or restricting the display of flags, banners and emblems.
That is simply to make it quite plain that in a case where the police authority have reasonable ground for thinking that it is not necessary to take severe action but that in the circumstances, owing to local conditions or the streets through which the procession would pass, it might be necessary to restrict the display of banners and emblems. I am not differing from the views expressed by the hon. Member opposite about democratic rights and the importance of preserving


them, but one can well imagine cases where such conditions as I have described may exist. The hon. Member for the Scotland Division of Liverpool (Mr. Logan) will agree that there may be highly exhilarating banners which might tend to cause a disturbance of the peace. That is not to say that this restriction will necessarily be imposed. My view of the matter is that in most cases there will be no justification for imposing it. My suggested Amendment would be to give power to impose
conditions for prohibiting or restricting the display of flags, banners and emblems.
The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) wanted prohibition. That would be much too strict. I want to be sure that nothing more shall be done than on reasonable grounds is found to be necessary.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: In view of the announcement of the Home Secretary that he would like to move an Amendment in a different form it might be desirable for the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) to withdraw his Amendment, and then we can have a Debate on the new words.

10.8 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: On a point of Order. I am wondering whether the course that you propose would be suitable, and whether we should not have a certain amount of debate on the hon. Member's Amendment, because it seems to me, having heard the Home Secretary's words, that what the right hon. Gentleman is proposing is worse from our point of view than was proposed by the hon. Member. The only banners that would be prevented, according to the Amendment moved by the hon. Member, are those likely to provoke a breach of the peace, but what has been suggested by the Home Secretary would mean that on the reasonable apprehension of the chief of police that there might be a breach of the peace, banners altogether might be prohibited.

10.9 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: If the hon. Member will look at page 3, line 42, he will see that the condition could never be made unless they are conditions which on reasonable grounds are thought to be necessary for. the preservation of public order. Not only that, but the police authority has to

apprehend that the procession might lead to serious disorder. Far from my suggested Amendment being more severe, I think that it is a milder provision than that contained in the Amendment of my hon. Friend.

Mr. PRITT: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider this point of view, that once the chief constable has grounds for apprehending, he might give any direction he likes, reasonable or unreasonable?

Sir W. DAVISON: In view of the statement by the Home Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

HON. MEMBERS: No.

10.10 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I am of opinion that if the language used by the Home Secretary is inserted it will give rise to serious public disorder.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The Committee will be in some dilemma if it has to discuss the suggested Amendment of the Home Secretary and the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) at the same time.

Mr. BEVAN: I think it will be possible to have a discussion on the general principle of prohibiting flags and emblems, or limiting flags and emblems in processions. Perhaps it would meet the convenience of the Committee if we had a discussion in general terms. If not, then I suppose we have to discuss the language of the Amendment that has been moved, although I do not think that we have any objection to that Amendment being withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. LLOYD: I beg to move, in page 4, line 2, at the end, to insert:
and conditions prohibiting or restricting the display of flags, banners and emblems.

Mr. BEVAN: It will be admitted that in the last few weeks there have been very large demonstrations in London about which very considerable feeling has existed, but those demonstrations took place without the slightest untoward incident. If the police have the powers that the Home Secretary's Amendment proposes to confer on them very grave disturbances of the peace are likely to arise. Imagine people assembling on a Sunday morning in Hyde Park and marching through certain districts. The hon.


Member whose Amendment has not been pressed lives in a part of London through which the procession might pass. Some people in his constituency would have their feelings inflamed by, say, the display of a banner asking that they should make larger contributions towards the maintenance of the unemployed. They have a right to be angry under the British law, but if they carry their anger to the point of what in the opinion of the chief of police would amount to a breach of the peace, then the poor people who are carrying their flags will have them taken away, because the hon. Member's constituents would be angry about the flags. All that the police have to apprehend is that there would be some citizens who would be made angry by these flags or emblems and who might carry their anger to extremes against the procession. In that case the flags would be taken away.
I would ask the Home Secretary to try to visualise the circumstances. Here are a number of people assembling in Bethnal Green or Shepherd's Bush and marching to Hyde Park carrying banners, slogans and emblems; sometimes the police are quite touchy on these occasions, and if they see a man in the procession carrying a banner they may say, "We do not like that flag; we have not seen it before." If that is to be the procedure, then demonstrations are going to be utterly impossible. People will have to rehearse the demonstration before the police. The assumption is that the interference of the police takes place at the point and at the time when the greatest feeling is going to be aroused. The right hon. Gentleman should realise what is likely to happen. A request was made to the hunger marchers that they should not enter the precincts of the City carrying sticks and staves which might be used as weapons—a very reasonable request. If the police had gone up to those taking part in that hunger march and had seized these staves, there would have been a rumpus at once. It was arranged that the sticks and staves should be taken from the men by the leaders of the demonstration, and no trouble arose.
I would like hon. Members to realise what a painful duty they are imposing on the police in asking them to intervene at the beginning of a demonstration, to quarrel with a number of men who may

be carrying what the police consider to be banners with objectionable slogans, surrounded by hundreds and thousands of people anxious to start out; people who at the moment are in a peaceful mood, but who may be roused to a point of fury by any unreasonable interference by the police. In imposing these wide obligations on the police you are liable to create a very unfortunate atmosphere out of what would have been a peaceful demonstration. I am not suggesting that the police would not succeed in carrying out their duties, but they would carry them out at the expense of wounding the feelings of those taking part in the procession and who might be very liable to take offence at any incident during the march and, instead of being a band of ordinary citizens, anxious to present their case in an orderly manner, you would have a huge band of disgruntled citizens in a mood to make a row if anything should happen.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a concession to his supporters which is very unnecessary and which will have the effect, not of preventing public disorder, but perhaps of giving rise to public disorder. There has been nothing in political demonstrations organised by hon. Members on this side which have made it necessary to impose these powers on the police. The hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) made it clear what was in his mind, that this was not aimed at the organisation which has given rise to this legislation, but was aimed at all kinds of political demonstrations. Everybody knows that the slogans carried by Fascist bands in the East End were slogans that were definitely provocative, but the slogans which are ordinarily used in demonstrations organised by hon. Members on this side of the House may be declamatory, but they are never devised to be deliberately provocative. [Laughter.] The hon. and gallant Member laughs, which means that he believes they have been provocative. In other words, there have only to be a number of citizens standing in the streets in the same condition as the hon. and gallant Member and we shall be prevented from carrying slogans which might inflame their easily inflammable minds.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: That is the whole object of the Bill.

Mr. BEVAN: That is an unreasonable proposition.

Mr. MABANE: I would like to be clear about the word "provocative." Surely a banner which has on it "Down with the means test" is provocative; otherwise it is meaningless.

Mr. BEVAN: The hon. Member says that it would be provocative. Now we can see that the hon. Member would like to prohibit it.

Mr. MABANE: I do not propose to prohibit it. I only wanted to know what the hon. Member means by the word "provocative."

Captain RAMSAY: I think we are at cross purposes, and I would like to be clear on this point, since I put down an Amendment to include the word "provocative." My purpose was not to regard the slogan "Down with the means test" as being provocative. I did not mean that sort of slogan. When I put down an Amendment to include the word "provocative," it was to be taken in the strict context of the Bill, that is to say, with reference to societies which are out to down democractic government in this country. I should be glad to see a definition in the Bill saying that any slogan devised by an official political party in this country, especially His Majesty's Opposition, was not in the nature of provocation, and that the word was aimed essentially at organisations out to smash democratic government.

Mr. BEVAN: Hon. Members are' perfectly entitled to hold the view that the slogan "Down with the means test" is a provocative one, and the hon. Member opposite said that it was meant to be provocative. Hon. Members on this side consider it is a short way of giving expression to the grievance that gives rise to the demonstration. The demonstration is against the means test; the means test is a political act and they say, "Down with the means test." If the hon. Member regards that as provocative and if the police shared his point of view, I assure hon. Members in all parts of the House that demonstrations which are now moderately peaceful would go off in a sanguinary fashion if the police were armed with powers and exercised them in the manner in which the hon. Member expects they would. It seems to me that the Committee, if it allows the

Home Secretary to include these words, will impose upon the police an operation of delicacy from which the police ought to be protected. It is not fair of hon. Members to entrust to the police powers and to impose upon them duties which would, by being exercised, cause the disorder which the Bill is devised to prevent.
There is all the difference in the world between a slogan "Down with the Yids" and one "Down with the means test." No one has any doubt as to what is the meaning of the slogan "Down with the Yids"—it is devised to be provocative and to stir up feeling; but people do not identify themselves with the same ardour with the means test as they identify themselves with anti-Semitism. It is, therefore, foolish to say that Down with the means test "would arouse the same sort of feeling. With all deference to the Home Secretary, I suggest that, having made peaceful progress with this Measure up to now, he ought not to put into the Bill language which may promote disorder in the Committee, and that he should be satisfied with the wording in the first part of Clause 3 which speaks about the police having power to impose conditions upon a demonstration. I an; not intervening in order to carry on the Debate unnecessarily, but I think the right hon. Gentleman will realise that by this Amendment he is seeking to put into the Bill something which will have an effect opposite to that which he has in mind.

10.26 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: I must say that I find myself in some sympathy with what the hon. Member has just said, and it is not often that I find myself in that position. But I think he is under a misapprehension. With regard to the interjection which came from my hon. and gallant Friend below the Gangway, I suggest that he ought to be very careful in this connection, because the propagation of either Communism or Fascism is not illegal in this country. It is just as well that that fact should be realised by all sides. It is only the behaviour of those who propagate it, or the manner in which it is propagated, that can be illegal. Do not let us say that we here are legislating against either Communism or Fascism, because if we do that we shall only encourage the


growth of both. As an old Member, I may venture to suggest to the Committee that we are not in fact legislating against either.

Captain RAMSAY: I entirely accept what my Noble Friend says, but I would like to add that whatever else this Committee is legislating against, it is, as I understand it, legislating first against the organisation of force, and, secondly, against the provocative actions of individuals. If provocative action expresses itself in banners and inscriptions, I am opposed to it.

Earl WINTERTON: That makes the matter clear. I of course accept my hon. and gallant Friend's statement, and I think we are all in agreement with what he has just said. The hon. Member opposite gave the example of the inscription, "Down with the means test." I cannot conceive that any chief constable or any Commissioner of Police could be so foolish as to suppose that a banner bearing that inscription would be of such a provocative nature that it could not be carried without risk of disorder. I am certain that in the case of the provinces the members of the watch committees and in the case of the Metropolitan Police, many hon. Members on both sides would very strongly object to such a decision. But when it comes to distinguishing between violent mottoes carried by different individuals, that is another matter. Let me say in parenthesis that I have seen a fair number of trade union processions and I have never seen any banner carried in them which could, I imagine, possibly come under the Amendment proposed by the Home Secretary. There are banners and inscriptions which are perfectly legitimate forms of political expression, and I share with hon. Members opposite the feeling that it would be a gross piece of reaction to attempt to prevent the carrying of such banners.
When the hon. Member opposite quotes the slogan of the Fascists, "We must get rid of the Yids" and says that that is provocative, I entirely agree, and it is partly to prevent the use of such inscriptions that I support the Home Secretary. It is only fair to point out that such inscriptions as "Death to the

capitalists," or "Death to the baby starvers" are equally provocative. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must be fair in this matter, and must make up their minds what they want to do. If they want, as I imagine most people want, to stop provocative banners being carried in Fascist processions, and if they want to stop provocative conduct on the part of Fascists, they have got to agree to have similarly provocative conduct on the part of other parties, even their own party, stopped as well. The real difficulty in which the Committee is placed is that the growth of extremism of a certain kind in this country has made it necessary to take steps to prevent the growth of extremism of another kind, and the Committee would be wrong to attempt to weight the disc one way or the other. The hon. Member opposite put the case very moderately, but I think he is under a misapprehension when he says that any police would prevent the kind of slogan which he had in mind.

10.31 p.m.

Sir P. HARRIS: I do not think there is any real disagreement in the Committee with the idea of keeping the liberty to organise processions. The right to march in procession is just as important to democracy as is the right to hold public meetings, and processions without emblems or banners are almost like public meetings without speakers.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT: All the better for that !

Sir P. HARRIS: The hon. Member may adopt the practice of throwing out speakers at his meetings. I think we all want to preserve the right to carry banners in procession, but I think that the words now proposed, if they are not qualified, may go too far. Of course, if the banners are to be effective, they must hold a provocative political slogan. It is no use having a procession if the banners which express its purpose do not have a provocative slogan, but I do not think it is beyond the wit and skill of the right hon. Gentleman to devise appropriate words. I would like to see a new Amendment containing some such words as "likely to lead to a breach of the peace." That is his purpose. The hon. Member above the Gangway here referred to what is largely the cause of this particular Clause. A phrase like "Down


with the means test," or, if I might remind the right hon. Gentleman of a movement with which he was associated many years ago, a banner bearing the words "The big loaf," which was a very inspiring cry some 20 years ago, would be provocative, but it would not be likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
The kind of thing that we want to stop is a procession deliberately organised to stir up racial prejudice and to lead to commotion. A few weeks ago an organised body deliberately went through a Jewish quarter in London, Whitechapel, where the vast majority of people are Jews, with banners and with slogans with the words already quoted, "Down with the Yids." That is more than provocative, and it is not a political slogan. Done in that particular way and on that particular route, it undoubtedly, if it had been permitted by the Commissioner of Police, would have brought about a breach of the peace. I think that if we can agree to some words of the character I have mentioned, we can let these words go through.

10.34 p.m.

Mr. H. MORRISON: One appreciates fully the difficulty in which the Home Secretary is, and perhaps this is not the most satisfactory way of proceeding, though we can understand that it quite naturally arose in these conditions, that an hon. Member moved a printed Amendment, and the Home Secretary, during the discussion, thought there were some other words that would be better, and put them before the Committee. He and the Government and all of us are in the position that we are dealing with a manuscript Amendment on a matter of some difficulty. I agree with the Noble Lord and I thank him for his speech; one of the most provocative slogans we have seen is "Down with the Yids." It is true that our people have had slogans "Down with this" and "Down with that" and "Down with" people holding particular opinions, though there was no great harm in them. There are slogans of a more affirmative character saying "Up with this" or "Up with" somebody or other; and even "Up and up and up," and "On and on and on." "Down with the means test" is not provocative, although people may violently disagree with the sentiment. I would not say that even "Down with the baby starvers" is not provocative to

certain people. We have all seen slogans and banners with which we disagree. I have seen a banner "Socialism means ruin." I think that that is a provocative perversion of the truth, but it is highly probable that the people who put up the slogan earnestly believed in it. One must be charitable to people like the hon. Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) who believes things that no reasonable person would believe. I am not sure that the words which the Home Secretary has suggested are not more difficult of operation than the words suggested by the hon. Member for South Kensington. At the end of the Subsection
conditions prohibiting the procession from entering any street or public place specified in the directions,
the Home Secretary proposes to add
and conditions prohibiting or restricting the display of flags, banners and emblems.
As far as I can tell after consultation with my hon. Friends, it does not even appear to be required that these flags, banners, or emblems have to be provocative or likely to lead to a breach of the peace.
May I put a point to the Home Secretary that may not have occurred to him? Imagine the administrative difficulties of the police in doing their job. They would, for example, have to find out from the promoters of a demonstration what kind of flags, banners and emblems they were going to exhibit. They might want to have the wording on them—if there is any wording, because the wording is not required under the Amendment—and they would have them put up in a row on exhibition at Scotland Yard or at the police station in the provinces. They would then have gravely to decide what is provocative and what is not. Imagine the difficulty of the police in deciding what is provocative in the political sense, because the police, as far as I know, are not experienced politicians, and what is provocative in politics is a highly disputable matter. Therefore, the police would be put in the greatest difficulty. It is an onus that ought not to be put on the police authorities. Moreover, the Clause as it stands really gives the police the powers that they want. Take the case of an organisation which has a demonstration with a slogan which is provocative without question and, in fact,


provokes disorder. The police under the conditions which already exist in the Clause can say to the promoters next time they come for a permit: "The last time you had one you put these words up and they caused a row, and if you are going to have this procession you must give an undertaking that you will not have anything of the kind again." That would be all right, but if the police have to ask for all these emblems, banners and flags to be exhibited and then exercise a censorship, I suggest they would be put in an impossible position.
May I make this suggestion to the Home Secretary? We all recognise the difficulty of the position, and we should like to get through our difficulties without a Division, because it would be a nice thing if we could make this a real House of Commons Measure. I know that he has troubles on his side, as well as having to meet the criticisms from this side, and I suggest that to-night is not the proper occasion on which this point should be settled. I suggest that the Home Secretary should, with the leave of the Committee, withdraw his Amendment and consider the matter further, and I hope he will then be able to come to the conclusion that no Amendment is necessary on the point, or, if he does think that some Amendment is required, that he will be able to frame it in a way which will remove the perfectly reasonable apprehensions of my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) on the point. If the Home Secretary will be good enough to leave it in that way I think we might make more rapid progress with this Clause.

10.41 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The right hon. Gentleman has made a suggestion to me, and I should like to tell the Committee how I regard it. I must make it quite plain to the Committee that the intention to put in here some reference to banners was not a hasty afterthought. Quite early in our discussion this afternoon I pointed it out as being really involved in this Clause, but I do think there is force in what has been said by the right hon. Gentleman and some other Members that my Amendment did not appear on the paper—it is the only occasion which I have sinned in this respect—and

that it is very difficult to follow these things, which are very important, merely from verbal description or even after hastily taking a note of an Amendment for oneself. I feel that is a fair criticism. The hon. Baronet the Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris) thought everything could be put right by inserting the words "likely to lead to a breach of the peace," and that is a suggestion which I should like to look at, though, in fact, the Clause as printed speaks of conditions necessary for the "preservation of public order." Of course we have to be very careful to see that we do not repeat ourselves in an Act of Parliament, or the language of the judges will then be even worse than has been suggested.
The proposal of the right hon. Gentleman is a reasonable one, and as long as it is understood that I am not in any way abandoning my view that we ought to make a suitable reference in the Clause to the topic of banners I should be quite prepared, if the Committee will allow it, to withdraw the manuscript Amendment which I have moved with a view to putting down, before the Report stage, and possibly after consultation with hon. Members, what I think would be a suitable way of expressing the point. I must say that I do not believe for a moment that any of the rather, as I think, extravagant anxieties which have been expressed are justified. I cannot conceive that any real trouble could arise. The police may have their faults, but they are not complete fools, and for my part I should draw the sharpest distinction between a banner stating a proposition with which I did not agree and a banner with expressions on it which indicated an endeavour to foment a riot. I do not know any better way of proceeding than that we should express our feelings in the Committee about it and then deliberately decide what is the best form of words, and I would ask leave to withdraw the Amendment following the suggestion which ha s 'been made.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: Is it the pleasure of the Committee that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Colonel GRETTON: I should like—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If the right hon. Gentleman speaks, the Amendment cannot be withdrawn.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. TINKER: I beg to move, in page 4, line 3, to leave out Sub-section (2).
In Clause 1 we dealt with the powers of the police, but this Sub-section appears to us to give an even wider power to a local borough council or district council. It may mean that they can prohibit all kinds of processions, but we do not want that to happen. A borough council or district council which is, from our point of view, reactionary, may, in consultation with the chief of police, decide to prohibit a procession. In that kind of district unless a procession has the approval of the authorities, no procession can take place. There may be a desire to arouse public opinion to alter the political complexion of the council, but if the council has power, with the chief of police, to prohibit a procession, there is not much chance of that change being brought about. We have put the Amendment on the Paper with the object of securing an explanation of its meaning from the Home Secretary, and we now ask him what it means. It may be that we shall not oppose the Sub-section after we have heard his explanation.

10.47 p.m.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to support the Amendment. I see many difficulties in the operation of the Clause because of the greatly increased penalties which are to be imposed. My own organisation has in the past taken collections on May Day and sold flowers, and the moderate Glasgow magistrates gave permission to the Independent Labour party to do so. As soon as the Labour majority came into office, the Labour magistrates gave permission only to the Labour party and denied it to the Independent Labour party which, for the last two years, has been prosecuted for disregarding that prohibition; but the present position is much better than the new proposals, with their greatly increased penalties. I hope the Home Secretary will see that the very heavy penalties now being introduced will cause trouble and difficulty in the future if a demonstration takes place and is followed by disturbance. If he still insists upon going on with Sub-section (2) I hope he will take into account the need to modify the penalties. The best thing he could do would be to cut out the new provisions altogether, and leave things as they are. If the modification

is made with regard to insulting language in processions, or something like that, it is dealing with the one question really at issue. So far as our demonstrations are concerned otherwise, there should be no alteration.

10.51 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I support strongly the proposal to delete Sub-section (2). I should like to see the entire Clause disappear from the Bill. The Committee should realise the grave dangers of this type of legislation. Where you have one particular evil on which the eyes of the country are fixed there is always a liability that a breadth of legislation will be passed which will catch all manner of people and movements afterwards. At the time of the Mutiny at the Nor a number of Acts were passed to deal with the mutineers and sedition among them, but it was under those Acts that the Tolpuddle martyrs were sent for seven years to Australia, and I am certain that no one at the time thought that such use would be made of the Acts. Nor do I suppose that when provisions were being discussed in the 16th century as regards dealing with vagrant soldiers from abroad it was contemplated that Tom Mann would be put into gaol as a result of them. But both were sufficiently widely drawn to permit those things to happen. That is always the danger of legislation the words of which are wide enough to cover all sorts of eventualities that may subsequently occur.
This Bill is aimed at the introduction of militarisation into the political life of the country, from whatever quarter that militarisation may come. So long as the Bill is dealing with that it has my fullest support and sympathy. But Clause 3, and particularly this Sub-section, is going beyond that. However much we may say it is or is not intended to do so, it will interfere inevitably with that type of publicity for grievances which alone the poorer sections of the community have at their disposal. They cannot have pictures put on a cinematograph screen, they cannot hire talkies, they cannot control the Press. The only way they can deal with their grievances is in the manner adopted by the hunger marchers, that is, demonstrate with banners throughout the country or in the localities. It is essential that that right should be preserved in its absolute fullness if we are to avoid


methods of violence. It is the safety valve for the people, when they are repressed, to be able to utilise these methods to bring their evils prominently before their fellow-countrymen.
That method has been utilised in this country for over a century. Up to the present time we have always been able, under our existing law, to deal with that type of demonstration. We have had the skeleton army, the Orangemen and the Catholics, and many cases in which feelings have been extremely high, but it has not been necessary to introduce legislation of this type in order to deal with them.
Now, because a somewhat similar thing is happening, the main evil of which is the military form which it has taken, we are going not only to strike at the military form, but also at the very right of demonstration. I believe we ought at least to see whether we shall not cure the evil, as I believe we shall, by what we have in Clauses 1 and 2, that is to say, by striking militarism out of politics. If it subsequently becomes apparent that the powers which the police now possess in regard to controlling demonstrations and processions are not sufficient, and that something further is required in order to preserve the public peace, then it will be time enough to jeopardise this great right of the people of Great Britain by introducing new legislation; but, until we have tried the effect of taking this military element out of politics, we have no right to do anything whatsoever to strike at this inherent right of the people to demonstrate. I do not know whether Members of the Committee realise exactly what Sub-section (2) is going to give people the power to do. It starts by saying:
If at any time the chief officer of police is of opinion that by reason of particular circumstances existing in any borough…
This is a matter which is purely for the chief officer of police to initiate. He can say, "I do not propose to use Subsection (1) at all; I propose to go straight to Sub-section (2), because in my opinion the particular circumstances in my borough are such that Sub-section (2) will be the better." He then goes presumably to the Watch Committee, and, with that authority which the chief of police has in advising the Watch Committee in a matter of this sort, he says: "In my

opinion, as the man responsible for the guardianship of this area, I tell you you ought to prohibit processions." Both the police and the Watch Committee, naturally, do not like to take risks. It is much easier for them if there is a difficulty, a state of tension, in their area, to say, "Let us ban all processions; then we shall not have any trouble at all." But it is an extraordinarily dangerous thing to offer them the temptation of that easy way out of what, quite rightly, may be considered a difficult time. If we are not going to have any difficult times, we are not going to have democracy at all in this country, because, especially if you are going to allow the free play that is necessary for political demonstration and discussion in a democracy, you must sometimes have occasions when tempers and feelings run high in particular districts, and you must then have the liability of some public disorder taking place. We have often run that risk.
For many years now we have had occasional incidents, but on the whole we have managed to get on very well until someone introduced militarisation of politics, and this is going to offer to a certain type of mind, both in the local authorities and among chief police officers, a great temptation to say, "Because there is a feeling of tension in my district, I will suggest to the local authority that we ban all processions." Then the local authority have to get the consent of the Secretary of State. What is the position of the Secretary of State? He does not know intimately the circumstances in the area; he is bound to act very largely upon the advice arid recommendation of the local people—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I have to call the attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman to the fact that there is a later Amendment which deals specifically with the point in regard to the Secretary of State, and I think that perhaps we had better leave that point until that Amendment is moved.

Sir S. CRIPPS: I understood that we were discussing the question of omitting Sub-section (2).

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am not referring to the whole Sub-section, but to certain Amendments, of which that is one.

Sir S. CRIPPS: It is very difficult to discuss the question of omitting a complete Sub-section if we cannot discuss the machinery which it is proposed to adopt if the Sub-section be passed. I ask that, in order to make a logical argument, I may be allowed to refer to the machinery which it is proposed to use.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I am in the hands of the Committee. Personally I agree that it would be better to take a discussion on all the points, reserving the right to move Amendments and take a decision, but I am in a. difficulty because of the Amendments of the hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Foot). Obviously we cannot have a discussion now and have the same discussion on each Amendment.

Mr. FOOT: My three Amendments all stand together and are designed to deal with one particular point, whether the activating of the local authorities should be carried out by the Secretary of State or by the Court of Quarter Sessions for the district. If it meets the convenience of the Committee, I am prepared to move them formally when the time comes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: If that is agreeable to the Committee, I have no objection.

Sir S. CRIPPS: The Secretary of State will have, of course, to act in this matter under advice, and the advice which he will seek, and in many cases take, will be the local advice of those intimately connected with the local circumstances. There would at least be many cases where, once the chief officer of the police initiates this matter, it will go through the whole of the stages, and in effect the whole activating power of the eventual order will be the opinion of the chief officer of police. He will, in fact, be the person who will initiate, and in the result it will be because he has formed this opinion that all demonstrations in the area will be stopped. I can understand people who say that Sub-section is necessary. In my opinion, for what it is worth, it is not necessary. There are quite sufficient powers already to deal with the matter. But assume Sub-section (1) to be necessary, when it comes to Sub-section (2) I cannot for the life of me see why it should be necessary in any circumstances to give this power of prohibiting all processions and demonstrations. There

may be some perfectly harmless procession—the Salvation Army on a Sunday, which presumably would be prohibited if an Order were made prohibiting all processions and demonstrations, processions of Boy Scouts and Church Lads' Brigades, Girl Guides, and amongst them I would put a procession of a trade union. They are all perfectly harmless. Yet, under this clearly, once someone likes to come into the area and be provocative with a procession, they can stop everyone else coming along and having a procession in that area, if they once get the chief officer of police into the mind that on the whole it would be better for the district if they had no more processions at all.
If that is to happen, we shall deprive certain groups of people of what is and must remain, if democracy is to remain, an essential and fundamental right, the right to demonstrate and to have a procession. Therefore, I ask the Committee not to allow this Sub-section to become part of the Bill, but rather to take the risk, if risk there be, in order to preserve untouched this great right of the people of England, that when we have done away with militarisation in politics there still may be some difficulties such as we have encountered and successfully dealt with before by the machinery already at our disposal.

11.6 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON: We have had a very interesting discussion on the Clauses which have been brought before the Committee. There has been no party bias shown, and it is very desirable that we should conclude these discussions at a reasonable hour. We could not discuss a more important question than that contained in this Bill. It is a question which affects everyone; it is the heritage of English public life. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) has addressed a powerful argument to the Committee, but I think that his conclusions are wrong. I do not propose to argue why his conclusions are wrong, but will leave that for the Government to do. [Laughter.] I do not know why the hon. Member laughs. I presume that I should be quite as capable of doing it as he would. At this late hour it can be performed as well by the Government or better.


What vitiates the conclusion reached by the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite is the power we are now permitted to discuss of the Secretary of State. The action of the Secretary of State can be challenged in this House, but the action of the police generally cannot be challenged in this House. The action taken by the local authority which requires the fiat of the Secretary of State can be discussed by the House, and it would be open to any hon. Member to ask Mr. Speaker for the Adjournment of the House to call attention to a definite matter of urgent public importance. Therefore, I should think the rights of the public would be sufficiently safeguarded. It seems that there is a difference of opinion between the two sides of the Committee. I understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that it would be intolerable, if processions are prohibited, if you did not allow processions of the Salvation Army. I agree that it would be somewhat intolerable if the local authority said that they would not allow Fascists or Communists to hold processions but would allow the Liberals or Tories. I am not sure that under the Bill that might not happen. I am not satisfied, and hope that the Government will insert the necessary words to deal with the matter. It may be asked, What constitute a political procession? It might be held that one body of people were holding a political procession and that another body were not holding such a procession at all. We have to be extremely careful to see that this is not unfairly laid against any extremist, right or wrong.
I should like an assurance from the hon. and learned Gentleman that the words "any class of procession so specified" mean what they are purported to mean. That is to say, that no procession of a political or semi-political character would be permitted if all were prohibited. It is very important that we should not have any form of differentiation in that way. There is something very human in a Committee of the House of Commons solemnly having to discuss these matters because of the action of the Fascists in the East End of London, seeing that Sir Oswald Mosley has obtained a good advertisement because of these debates.

11.11 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: The question is the omission of Sub-section (2). I have looked into the matter as fully as I could, and I do not think that I can advise the Committee to agree to the omission of the Sub-section. It provides for a perfectly exceptional case. That is plain because of the contrast between it and Sub-section (1). The hon. and learned Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) says that he is against the whole Clause, and therefore against Sub-section (1). I am addressing myself to hon. Members who have been taking part in our proceedings and have approved of Subsection (1). The question is whether, given Sub-section (1) in the Bill which includes some control of processions, we can safely dispose of Sub-section (2). In the inquiries which it has been my duty to make I have received representations from many quarters, not only from one side of the House, from responsible persons, very democratically-minded persons, who have thought that it might be right to give the police, with proper safeguards, power to prohibit processions. That is not a view which the Government have taken. We thought that would be a too wide and unnecessary power. That was why in Sub-section (1) we only gave them power to route processions. This problem arises in certain corners of the country. It may be in some corner of the East End of London.
I should like the right hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) to say whether my illustration or suggestion does not represent a possible case. A case may arise in which the routing of a procession on these lines: "You must not go down street A, but down street B," would not meet the case. It may be a procession which is deliberately devised for the purpose of creating racial or religious trouble, and you do not necessarily get rid of your trouble by saying, "You must not go down this street, but you may go down the next one"; because you may have a limited area, a portion of the district, in which, having regard to the character of the population and the special circumstances, there is for the time being great feeling. Such a case may arise. It is, I agree, an exceptional case, but it is a perfectly conceivable case, and there are hon.


Members who will agree that it is a case that we must not cut out. How are we to deal with it? We cannot deal with it by simply giving power to the police authority to do what they like. Therefore we have by Sub-section (2) provided that they must be prepared to bring their view before the local authority.
That seems a very reasonable provision. It is the method which is now followed in provincial towns of England. It may be different in Scotland. To that extent you are proceeding on democratic principles, as local authorities are elected on a democratic basis. It seemed to the Government, however, that that might not be enough, 'and that is the reason why the order of the local authority must be approved by the Secretary of State. As the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has pointed out, that is to ensure effective Parliamentary control. I hope that no occasion will arise for this power to be exercised. If so, the Home Secretary would have to defend it in this House. I do not see my way to agree to the omission of the Sub-section because it does not deal with a fanciful case, but with a case which might arise. The reason why we have provided for it is that Sub-section (1) is not drawn in such drastic terms

Sir S. CRIPPS: Would the right hon. Gentleman be prepared to limit the Sub-section to cases of racial and religious ill-feeling? That would remove a great part of our objections.

Sir J. SIMON: I am interested to find that the hon. and learned Member does not object to the Sub-section altogether—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I do.

Sir J. SIMON: Not so much. I do not think the Committee would be wise in putting in words like "racial" or "religious," because there might conceivably be other cases. At any rate I do not want to have anything to do with putting on the Statute Book a proposition which seems to be addressed to either racial or religious matters. I sympathise with the view that it would never do to exercise power under the Sub-section which would be manifestly partisan as between one party and another. That is a good reason for

securing that it comes before the House of Commons and can be challenged. That is the very reason for it. It is not the case, as the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East seemed to think, that the Sub-section would prohibit the Salvation Army or the Boy Scouts—

Sir S. CRIPPS: I said that if all processions were banned that would be necessary.

Sir J. SIMON: There is no justification for doing that, and it is the reason further for providing that the Secretary of State may give his consent to the proposals as they are put before him or—
make an order either in terms of the application or with such modifications as may be approved by the Secretary of State.
That is to ensure a juster application of the Sub-section. I hope I have shown that the Sub-section though less likely to be frequently used is nevertheless, in the opinion of the Government, a necessary precaution in the Bill. One word more in conclusion, and with great respect to the hon. and learned Member for Bristol East, who several times called in aid the great principle of democracy. I think it is just as well that the people of this country should remember that we have a free Parliament which does succeed in challenging the executive, and most of us, therefore, take the view that they are much better under this system than under some other systems which have been suggested.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. H. MORRISON,: The object in moving this Amendment was to obtain information from the Home Secretary. The Home Secretary has given an explanation of this Sub-section which, I think, makes it reasonably clear. It is only fair that I should take the responsibility for referring to the difficulty that arises out of the October disturbances, when some of us were apprehensive as to what had happened or might happen in future. At the time my right hon. Friend the Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) very strongly urged the Home Secretary to prescribe an appropriate route for the process—and I would point out incidentally that my right hon. Friend I gather, is not opposed to the general principle


which underlies this Clause—but the difficulty about an area in which certain sections of the population live in many streets and over a considerable district is to get a route on a street basis without leaving the trouble to continue.
Those of us who are living somewhat near the spot and have the problem very closely in mind may perhaps pay more serious attention to it than do others—perhaps even more serious attention than we ought. Nevertheless, the problem, which must not be under-estimated, was that a certain organisation, not only in London, but in Leeds and to some extent in Manchester, deliberately marched in and about a certain quarter of the district for the deliberate and conscious purpose of provoking disorder and trouble, and I know they did it because they were consciously and deliberately following the technique of the Nazis in Germany. With very great respect to my bon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps), I assure him that, if that goes on, and if there are not adequate powers to limit it, a terrible situation will develop in such districts. I cannot take the rather easy view that he takes on the matter, nor can I share the excessively alarmist view which is held by some others. The problem arises not only in the East End, but in Leeds, where people deliberately marched in and about the Jewish area in the city, and in Manchester. We have either to allow this to go on or we have to stop it. This Sub-section is linked up with Sub-section (1), and cannot operate except for the reasons indicated in subsection (1), namely,
that there is ground for apprehending that the procession may occasion serious public disorder.
That really is the case—not only public disorder, but grave worry and grave mental stress and menace to sections of the population who desire to live peaceful lives.
My second point is that, if it be conceded that there is a case for consideration in this class of trouble, surely the Sub-section, having regard to the explanation given by the Home Secretary, could not provide more checks and more democratic guarantees as to its reasonable use. First of all, the police must have an opinion on the matter; they must have ground for apprehension. Secondly, they must obtain the support of the

district council or the borough council. In South Wales, for example, it would be the urban district council, non-county boroughs, or presumably the county borough. It is not a power which is conferred on the county police authority. There can be an effective veto on the police. There must be an affirmative consent by the district or borough council and, finally, the consent of the Secretary of State, which can be challenged in this House. I venture to think that, in the circumstances, it is not an unreasonable Sub-section. My hon. Friends at a certain meeting—to which all my hon. Friends could have come—decided to put down this Amendment for the purpose of getting an explanation, but they did not intend, unless there was grave reason to think that the situation was worse than they had supposed it to be under the Sub-section, to press it to a Division. In the circumstances I would advise my hon. Friend who moved the Amendment to seek the leave of the Committee to withdraw it.

11.26 p.m.

Brigadier-General Sir HENRY CROFT: Like many of my hon. Friends, I lean towards the views just expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. II. Morrison) as against those expressed by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps). I think the hon. and learned Gentleman was inclined to forget the genesis of the Bill. I do not think anybody contemplates that ordinary peaceful processions to express political or other views are going to be interfered with in the days to come. But we realise that an ugly situation arose, that streets were actually barricaded and that the police in trying to preserve order in a certain area were stoned. A recurrence of such a situation is obviously undesirable. Nobody wants to find fault with any procession of British citizens going quietly to Hyde Park, say, to express their views. Processions, not necessarily in uniform but under Swastika banners or Fascist emblems, or red Hags—something which is provocative and is alien to this country—are the processions which would be called in question. I entirely agree with the right hon. Gentleman that we want to eliminate any idea of making racial distinctions. Nevertheless we have to face the fact that there are methods of expressing opinion which are foreign to


our people, and the House of Commons is acting a worthy part in supporting, unanimously, legislation to eliminate once and for all those foreign institutions which stir up hatred, envy and malice in our midst. We want a reversion to that free right of expression and protest which has always been acknowledged in this country.

11.29 p.m.

Mr. FOOT: I am sorry to break in on the delightful unanimity which now prevails between the Home Secretary, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) and the hon. and gallant Member for Bournemouth (Sir H. Croft). I listened with deep interest to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney echoing the sentiments of the Home Secretary and other occupants of the Government Front Bench, and having heard that on two or three occasions today, I merely say that I am thankful to belong to the only party in the House of Commons which is not afflicted with a Front Bench.
The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary defended this Sub-section on the ground that Sub-section (1) dealt only with the stopping up of particlar streets. He said that that was not sufficient power, because there might be occasions on which it might be necessary to prohibit a procession altogether. I quite appreciate the force of that argument, but it is no sufficient justification for Sub-section (2), which gives him power not only to prevent a procession in cases of emergency, but to impose a permanent ban on processions for any length of time which may seem good either to the chief officer of police or to the Secretary of State, and it goes very much further than any purposes which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned to the Committee. Your predecessor in the Chair, Sir Dennis, a few minutes ago ruled that I might, in the Debate on this Sub-section, deal with the three Amendments standing in my name, and I want to pass to the suggestion that I make in those Amendments. Sub-section (1), as I have said, deals with the question of an emergency ban, where there is some particular reason why a chief officer of police should decide that a procession should not adopt a certain route. Sub-section (2) deals with the ease of a permanent ban, and I want to

direct attention to this question of a permanent ban or one lasting for a considerable period of time.
In the first place, the chief officer of police who takes the initiative obtains the approval of the council of the borough or district in which he works, and finally it is necessary to obtain the approval of the Secretary of State for the Home Department; in other words, throughout the proceedings this is a purely executive act. We have heard a great deal throughout the discussion of this Bill about the preservation of our civil liberties, but I am one of the few people in this House who take the view that the greatest danger of an attack on our civil liberties comes, not from any outside body or faction, but from the growing power of the Executive itself. What may happen under the machinery which is set up under this Clause? As was pointed out by the hon. Member for Leigh (Mr. Tinker), in a great many parts of this country you have local councils who take somewhat reactionary views, and it sometimes happens that we have a Home Secretary who takes a rather reactionary view. Suppose you have a combination of the two at one and the same time, a large number of Tory councillors and also a Tory Home Secretary. It may quite easily happen under this Sub-section that you will have a great number of Orders made for the permanent banning of processions over a large part of the country, and you may very well have them confirmed by the Home Secretary of the day almost as a matter of course. But suppose you have a different political situation and a Socialist Home Secretary in office. Then you may have the position of a Home Secretary at loggerheads with a great number of local authorities.
The proposal that I have made, which apparently is thought peculiar by the Home Secretary, is that we should cut out altogether this reference to the Home Secretary and that we should instead allow a right of appeal to quarter sessions. I cannot help thinking that that would be a very much better safeguard. I know it may be said that it is not a judicial but an administrative task, to decide whether or not processions should be held, but may I remind the Committee that courts of quarter session do in fact discharge a considerable number of administrative duties at the present time and that there is a number of instances in our existing law where


it is possible to appeal from a local authority to quarter sessions? And it is a very good thing that that is possible. If, for instance, to take a single example, you want to set up something in the nature of a knacker's yard in a district and you are refused permission by the district council, it is already possible under the existing law to appeal to quarter sessions. If you want to stop or divert a highway under the present law, you not only have to obtain the permission of the district council and the county council, but you have to get the further permission of the quarter sessions. It is a very necessary safeguard, and quarter sessions acts as a valuable control in preventing an excessive use of powers by district or county councils. It will be said that under my scheme it would not be possible to raise in this House the use of these powers by the Home Secretary. I know that that is true, and I do not under-rate the opportunity of raising these matters on the Floor of the House, but, after all, the opportunities are somewhat limited. If there were, as there might well be, a considerable crop of Orders made under Sub-section (2), it would be very difficult under our existing procedure to raise a large number of these questions and to go into them thoroughly on the Floor of the House. It would be much easier for the pros and cons to be examined before an impartial body such as the court of quarter sessions.

11.37 p.m.

Sir J. SIMON: May I state briefly why I shall invite the Committee to reject this suggestion? It is an ingenious suggestion, as many of my hon. Friend's suggestions are, but I do not think it would improve the Bill. In a sense it is a proposal made from the Opposition Liberal benches to take away from the House of Commons opportunities which this Subsection gives to it, in order to substitute as the court of appeal a tribunal which meets once a quarter. Considering that in many cases the matter must be decided very promptly, I cannot believe it will be regarded as a very good way of recasting the Clause, and I shall ask the Committee to reject it.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. EDE: I am bound to say, as a member of a quarter sessions, that I cannot conceive a more unsuitable body to decide this particular question. I

heard earlier in the day the hon. and learned Member for Ashford (Mr. Spens) saying that many of these things would work out in practice, but I could not help wondering whose practice it would be. After all, this is the High Court of Parliament, and we have by our close acquaintance with professional advocates the power of putting a proper appreciation upon their way of stating the truth artistically to us; but I have never observed the same power exercised in the same degree by the court of quarter sessions. Therefore, I find myself in agreement, to my discomfort, with the Home Secretary. I am bound to say that I view this Sub-section with some misgivings because in its working out administratively it will give extreme powers to the chief constables in counties.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) discussed this in terms of watch committees, but the chief constable will go to the meetings of non-police boroughs and urban district councils, some of them quite small bodies, with all the prestige of a chief constable, and I very much doubt whether, in many cases, they will be able to withstand the weight of his authority. Until these recent instances has there really been any great abuse of the right of holding processions They are one of the great ways of conducting political controversy in this country. We are in the centenary year of "Pickwick," and surely the account of the Eatonswill election shows that the kind of things were occurring then of which people are to-day afraid. We know from the description by Dickens that the quite harmless banners which we see pourtrayed in the illustrations of "Pickwick" excited the most violent controversy, but in those days people apparently took it all in good part, and regarded it as part of the paraphernalia for ascertaining the views of the public.
I share the misgivings of a good many of my hon. Friends regarding all Clauses in the Bill after Clause 2. They feel that we are legislating in general terms and that the law will be used hereafter to destroy many of the privileges to, which lip-service is being paid to-day. I heard an hon. Member say that if it came to choosing between the Fascists and the Socialist party he would prefer


the Fascists. I hear that statement cheered by the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), and I can now understand why, when he "gives tongue" he thinks public meetings are best without speakers. In the light of that I ask hon. Members to realise that there are many provisions in this Bill which they think are to be applied to a more or less distinguished baronet who was once associated with us which will, in fact, be applied to us and never to him. In the past it has never been impossible to find some ancient Act of Parliament under which the activities of working class leaders could be brought to an end the moment they became too troublesome, and when I look down, I hope from above, in 200 or 300 years' time—if I am looking up from below, I shall then be more closely associated with my political opponents than I am to-day—I do not want to see the evil which the House is doing to-day living long afterwards.

11.44 p.m.

Mr. TURTON: There is one point in the speech of the hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) which deserves attention, and I ask the Home Secretary whether he can give an answer to it. In the Sub-section with which we are dealing the bodies are the borough councils or the urban district councils. The county councils are the police authorities for most urban districts and also rural districts. Would it not be better in the later stages to put in the county council?

11.45 p.m.

Mr. BEVAN: I rise to direct attention to some of the consequences likely to ensue from the grant of these powers. The Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has already pointed out that these proceedings are giving the best advertisement that a certain gentleman and a certain party have ever had; I would remind the Committee of the kind of advertisement that would arise if ever these powers were called into use. The Home Secretary has said that Subsection (2) confers upon Parliament greater powers of checking the exercise of these forces in no unreasonable manner. If an Order is applied for by a local authority to prohibit demonstrations in their district, and agreed to by a Home Secretary, it can be challenged

only upon the Floor of this House. The so-called lawless elements in the district, when they have misbehaved themselves in order to restrict the liberties of their fellow-citizens, are to enjoy a full advertisement in the House of Commons. There will be some most acrimonious Debates in this House, in which the defenders of the organisations will be able to state their case.
So far from this Bill preventing the growth of the kind of organisation to. which we take exception, it is a Bill to, confer the maximum publicity upon the most undesirable political elements. It puts into their hands the liberties of all the rest of the political community. All that has to happen is for a certain party to misbehave in such a manner as to-cause a breach of the peace arid reasonable apprehension, and the liberty of meeting and procession is forthwith removed from all other political parties in that borough. As the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham has pointed out, it would be intolerable if the Order proscribed Fascists and Socialists, or Fascists and Communists, and allowed Conservatives and others to hold demonstrations. If you have an Order, it must proscribe all forms of political demonstration. The Tories have, therefore, only to behave in an utterly unreasonable manner in certain boroughs in order to prevent the rest of us from holding demonstrations there. [An HON. MEMBER: "They never have demonstrations!"] That may be so, and may be the reason why they are not worrying very much about proscribing demonstrations. People who do not exercise any rights are not very anxious to defend them. I am anxious that the liberty, neither of Conservatives nor of Communists, should be taken away from them politically because of the behaviour of the Fascists, but that is what may well happen under the Bill. The Noble Lord has laid down quite reasonably that if you discriminate against one type of demonstration you must discriminate against all political demonstrations.

Earl WINTERTON: What I perhaps did not make clear is that this House, the Government, the Opposition, hon. Gentlemen on the other side, and the Press all demanded that this Bill should be brought in. On the whole I think they


were right, but let them realise what the effect is.

Mr. BEVAN: Most of the objects that we intend to achieve under the Bill can be achieved under Clauses 1 and 2. We are now extending the powers under Clause 3 to cover a range of activities quite unnecessarily, in order to achieve the objects of Clauses 1 and 2. I understand my hon. Friends are not going to press this to a Division, but I hope my hon. Friends, in the light of this discussion, are going to reconsider their support of this Sub-section. After all, the Opposition has a very important duty and particularly an Opposition placed in the position which we are in. The defending party are supposed to be the custodians of democratic liberties; it is the minority which must defend democratic rights. Imagine the difficulty of trying to bring on to the Floor of the House the circumstances in any borough in order to override the executive, the Home Secretary and the police. You only have to visualise the circumstances to realise that this is no protection at all.
I very much hope my hon. Friends will reconsider this matter, because, although in the atmosphere of to-day, in the manner in which we demonstrate to-day, it may appear that these powers contain no danger, it is just at the time when the exercise of these liberties will be all the more desirable for us that the issue between this side and that will be the most closely joined, that political passions will be inflamed, and when demonstrations will be considered to endanger the peace. Just at that moment when we are about to harvest years of propaganda and struggle, a valuable piece of political liberty will be taken from us. I can quite see why the other side of the House has blackmailed this side into acceptance of these powers, because it has been a piece of political blackmail. All Members of the House are anxious to prevent a repetition of the incidents in the East End of London recently and to prevent barbarism in Great Britain, but we ought not to hand over the political liberties of the people to the most lawless persons in Britain. I hope that we shall reconsider our support.

11.53 p.m.

Mr. J. GRIFFITHS: In addition to the other reasons that have been given, may

I offer one or two observations on this Sub-section and say why the Home Secretary ought to withdraw it? I want to refer to the second line in this Sub-section:
If at any time the chief officer of police is of opinion that by reason of particular circumstances existing in any borough or
urban district…
Are we right in saying that "particular circumstances" may refer to a strike? I take it that that meets with the Home Secretary's consent. Let me visualise such circumstances, with this clause in operation, and see what it means. We have heard warnings about the danger of the introduction of militarism in politics. On the Continent that has been accompanied by the creation of a political police. I want to warn the Committee that there may be powers in this Subsection which may result in the creation of political police. It is our business in legislation such as this to see how it is going to work out in practice. I urge the Home Secretary to consider such a circumstance—a strike in a certain urban district of Glamorganshire. The chief constable for the county of Glamorgan may, in the interests, to use the terms of the Clause, of the preservation of order, think it desirable to ban public processions because there is a strike; and let me warn hon. Members opposite that in Glamorgan that question will come before a council with a Labour majority. The chief constable makes his suggestion to the council, because there is a strike, because there is feeling, clue perhaps to men having been induced, as has happened in South Wales, or even bribed, to go to work where others are not working. He asks the council: "Will you agree with me to submit to the Home Secretary a request to ban processions while this strike lasts?"
Suppose that the council turns down the request. For the moment all we have been visualising is the reactionary urban district council, the Tory county council, that will agree, perhaps connive, with the chief constable. But assume the other kind of council. Let us assume that there are, as there may be, chief constables who have such definite prejudices as, very often, to be unable to hide them, as is not unknown in South Wales. The council may say to the chief constable: "We do not agree; we think that to ban public processions will not


be to preserve public order in this district, but to provoke public disorder. We believe that it is essential, at a time of tension, at a time of strife, at a time of industrial disturbance, that we as a local authority should not give the slightest sign of any suggestion that we are siding with the employers against the workers who are on strike." Therefore, we have a conflict between the chief constable and the council—

Sir J. SIMON: Unless there is agreement between the police authority and the local authority, nothing comes up to the Home Secretary at all. If they did both agree, it would be for the Home Secretary to decide whether he approved of the proposal, or whether he thought it should be reviewed or modified.

Mr. GRIFFITHS: I am much obliged. But in any case the other matter still remains. We do create the possibility of and the opportunity for industrial disputes to become matters of difference between the police and the local authorities, and I think that that perhaps is a consideration which has not been fully appreciated by hon. Members opposite. For these reasons I think that the Clause might give the impression, and, I believe, will give the impression, if there is any attempt to utilise it—and no one can guarantee that there will be no such attempt during a time of industrial crisis —of fanning the kind of feeling that we desire to avoid. I appreciate the situation that has given rise to the Bill; I appreciate the difficulties in the East End of London, and all the difficulties that arise from the fanning of racial and religious feeling. At the same time it seems to me that we are using a steamroller to crack a nut. I believe that we ought to make the most strenuous efforts in order to deal with a situation which I know has become critical in two or three centres. We are putting in jeopardy the liberties which our forefathers have won for us. Any attempt to use this at times of industrial crisis by banning demonstrations and preventing workers in constitutional ways expressing their sentiments will not lead to the preservation of order, but may be the means by which disorder is created.

12.1 a.m.

Mr. GALLACHER: I am very strongly opposed to this Sub-section. I cannot

understand the flippant way that some Members are prepared to accept it. The Noble Lord says this Bill arises out of the events of 7th October and is an advertisement of a certain political personality, and the hon. Gentleman who spoke from the Front Bench said that Mosley and company were using Nazi methods. The whole methods of the Nazis and Mosley are directed towards disrupting and destroying the working-class organisation, and the importance of this part of the Bill is that it is doing the job that Mosley is concerned with doing. It is not a, question of advertising Mosley but of doing his job. From the beginning of the industrial era, and even before it, demonstrations and processions have been a particular feature of the progress and advance of the country, but here we propose to hand over to the police authorities, supported by the Home Secretary at a particular time, the right to ban all demonstrations and processions. This is directed against the working class.
Continual reference is made to the Communists and Fascists. There is no such thing as a. Communist demonstration in the sense that you have a demonstration composed of Communists. There is no Communist movement apart from the movement of the working class. It would be utterly absurd and impossible for Communists to make a demonstration. It is a demonstration of the working class on some particular issue that deeply affects the working class. That is what we are concerned with. Why should the police have power to decide when and under what conditions the democratic rights of the working class are to be exercised? When did it ever become the function of the House of Commons, which is supposed to be the depository of democratic rights, to make such an attack upon democratic rights as in this Clause? This Bill has arisen because you have an organisation which directs slanders and provocations against a section of the community. There has been talk of provocation. It is one thing to provoke feeling against an Act of Parliament and another to provoke feeling against a section of the community. Because there is an organisation that deliberately incites provocation against a section of the community, you put in a Clause to give the police power to stop the working class from provoking opposition to the Act of Parliament, or


regulations that bear very heavily upon them.
As has been said already, anybody making a demonstration, "Down with the Yids," can, under a reactionary Tory Government and Home Secretary, provide the police with an opportunity of preventing the poor and depressed from making a demonstration, "Down with the means test." Is that what you want? Are you going to stop the making of a demonstration, "Down with Imperialism," simply because somebody is making slanderous attacks upon people because of their race or religion? We consider Imperialism a bad thing and that we are entitled to demonstrate against it. It is not enough to tell us that we are not to be allowed to demonstrate against Imperialism simply because the Tories do not want to demonstrate against it. They want to demonstrate in favour of Imperialism. They want to advertise it in the schools. They have full power to advertise it in the cinemas, the Press and everywhere. We cannot, as the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for East Bristol (Sir S. Cripps) said, have a great Press or have special features in the cinemas, or organise, and bring thousands to, garden parties.—[An HON. MEMBER: "What about Russia?"] In view of the fact that Russia has been mentioned, I would draw attention to the fact that a previous speaker stated that we did not want these foreign importations. He made a reference to extremes of both sides, and said that we did not want foreign importations. Surely, despite the lack of intelligence that is so obvious on the other side, they know enough to know that Communism was known, discussed and advocated in the most open and public manner in this country before it was ever heard of in Russia. Do they not know that fact? Please remember that there were such people as William Ross and Robert Owen—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is no doubt correct, but it appears to me to be very remote from the Amendment.

Mr. GALLACHER: I will come back to the Clause. When I listened to some of the speeches that were made on the Clause and heard how the police would

have to go to this body or that body and get them to agree with them, and then get the sanction of the Home Secretary before the Clause could be operated in the sense that demonstrations were to be banned, it seemed that there was a particular kind of safeguard. I ask the Home Secretary and any Member who is prepared to give even the least consideration to this very anti-democratic Clause, whether, once the police in an area have banned demonstrations, it is going to be an easy thing to get back the right to demonstrate? The people of this country had to pay a very heavy price for the right to demonstrate. I know that in Dundee the police, supported by the magistrates, banned demonstrations of the unemployed for many months. The unemployed had to come out in spite of the ban, and many of them had to get seriously injured and many imprisoned before they could get the ban lifted. The same sort of thing has occurred in other areas.
I cannot understand the Home Secretary talking so much about democracy in connection with this Clause. The police have powers now; if they have not powers they take them, anyhow. There is no demonstration in any part of the country in regard to which the police cannot get in touch with the organisers and lay down conditions as to the route to be followed and a lot of other conditions. All that applies at the present time. Before I came here I heard much talk about democracy. I have heard much more talk about it since I came here, but I do not see much of democracy in the actions of hon. Members opposite. I certainly do not see much of it in the support they have given to this Clause. For instance, when you get an hon. Member expressing the vain hope and illusion that Franco will win—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I must ask the hon. Member to keep to the Amendment before the Committee.

Mr. GALLAGHER: There is nothing democratic about it. I want to emphasise to hon. Members that because an organisation makes these insulting, lying and slanderous provocations against a section of the community and tries to create violence against a particular group of individuals, that is no reason whatever for interfering in any way with the rights of the working classes to demonstrate on


political issues. It is only as the working classes have the right to demonstrate and hold processions on political issues that the forces concerned with the support of these issues or with opposition to them have the opportunity of bringing out, as the result of coming into conflict, all that is best in connection with such issues. If you are going to deprive the working classes of this right, how are they to express themselves? Will you give us control of one of Lord Beaverbrook's papers? Will you give us control of the "Daily Mail"? We have one paper—the "Daily Worker"—and what a job it is to keep it going. It is a hard job to keep a paper for the working classes. We do not get big combines pouring out thousands of pounds for it. So the working classes are handicapped all along the line. We cannot buy up hoardings as the Tory party can, nor can we spend thousands of pounds on advertising. I ask hon. Members not to take these rights away front the working classes. Do not give to the police or to any reactionary local authority or reactionary Home Secretary the power at any time to take away from the workers and the unemployed that which the people of this country through generations have fought to obtain and protect, namely, the right to come out into the streets, to make processions and to demonstrate on issues that affect their very lives. I ask the Home Secretary to reconsider this matter and to withdraw the Clause. I ask everyone who believes in democracy to vote for its withdrawal.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I beg to move, "That the Chairman do report Progess; and ask leave to sit again."
I do so in order to ask the Home Secretary or the Patronage Secretary how far they propose to go to-night? I do not think the Home Secretary will argue that the House has been unfair to them. We have gone a very long distance with the Bill—much better than they anticipated, I believe. There was an understanding—I do not say an agreement—that the House should rise round about 12 o'clock. We have worked very hard. There are a large number of hon. Members who, if they are detained here after half-past 12, might just as well be here for the whole night. That is a great disadvantage, as

the right hon. Gentleman will recognise. We should be glad if he could break off the discussion as speedily as possible so that the House might adjourn.

12.17 a.m.

Sir J. SIMON: I think the best thing to do would be to finish the matter now before the Committee and then go home. The matter has been discussed at great length and some time ago we had a statement from the Front Bench opposite that they did not propose to vote against Sub-section (2). There is no question on Sub-section (3). There is a question on Sub-section (4), and I suggest we do not discuss that to-night, but that as soon as we have disposed of the present matter the next effective Amendment should be called. I should then be very glad to see the Committee rise.

Mr. MORGAN JONES: I aim in some difficulty. I am anxious to meet the right hon. Gentleman and the wishes of the whole Committee. I would like to see the business disposed of very quickly. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out, to the word as,' in line 11, stand part of the Clause."

12.19 a.m.

Mr. LOGAN: As this matter concerns my district as much as that of any other hon. Member, I feel I am justified in putting forward my views. I am not concerned about whether it means that we have to be up late or not. This matter has to be discussed. The question whether this Sub-section is necessary must certainly concern the Members of the Committee. When we axe told, as we have been to-night by the right hon. Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) that we have to be careful, we must remember that we have asked for the Bill, and now we have to be very sure that the Bill we have asked for does not bring greater injustice than if we had left things as they were. I understand that our object is to make an effort, in this Bill, to deal with a specified body of people known as the Fascisti. There is no doubt about that. We are told, with regard to this Bill, that we have to be fair to all parties in the House. I


would like now to put my point of view, and I would like the Home Secretary to note one or two things I am about to say.
In my particular neighbourhood we have had an incursion of a particular body, members of which wear military uniforms. There is no doubt that we could move this body at any time if we felt so inclined. It is an alien incursion into the Scotland division of Liverpool. What is to be my position? Am I not to be allowed in that division to advocate the Labour cause and to put forward the demands of the people—using, if the occasion arises, flags, banners and emblems—because of the incursion of that body into the East End of London?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: The hon. Member is addressing himself to an Amendment which was discussed about two hours ago.

Mr. LOGAN: With all due respect, I am dealing with Sub-section (2) of Clause 3, which I believe is the matter before the House.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I would point out to the hon. Member that it deals solely with the power to prohibit processions, and has nothing to do with flags or banners.

Mr. LOGAN: I am fully aware that it deals with the question of processions, and the power that will be invested in the chief constable. Under Clause 1, the chief of police would ordinarily have power to regulate processions, but under this subsection special power is given to the chief constable—as I understand the Bill in the English in which it is drafted—to make representations to the council, and if he gets its sanction, to approach the Home Secretary with a view to obtaining sanction to prohibit the procession. It is because that is my understanding of the Sub-section that I have risen at this late hour to raise my objection to any such power being given, first to the chief constable, secondly to the local council and thirdly, to the Secretary of State to authorise such a prohibition to take place.
Briefly stated, my reason for objecting is this. We have an alien body which is likely to cause a disturbance and we have to tolerate it simply and solely because

we do not wish to commit a breach of the peace. Suppose people from this alien body still protest and march as they are now doing in the Scotland division, placing themselves at street corners and speaking, and supposing we do not want them there, are we to be denied the right to have a procession ourselves because there will be a clash with a Fascist body? Are we to be told that the inalienable right which we have had for so many years is to be taken away from us because a Fascist body which cannot be controlled in the London area is now to be allowed in the provinces to have ramifications which are not allowed to it in London? Are we to be told that our rights are to be taken away, because the Government are not able to legislate to deal with a body, which I should imagine, could be dealt with as being seditious?
If I understand this Bill aright, our processions are to be limited, simply and solely because of that body. I ask the Home Secretary this question. Suppose that body comes into cur district and we do not move them out, can the chief constable object, if I then want to have a procession to denounce the Means Test and the Tory Government? Will such objection be valid? Is it to be said that because the Fascists are in our neighbourhood, there is likely to be a breach of the peace if we hold a procession and therefore the chief constable is to be given power under this Sub-section to approach the watch committee and object to our procession? We are a law abiding body of people. We have the control in that area. A n incursion of an alien body takes place. What are we to do? In ordinary circumstances we should throw them out neck and crop. If we do that, we shall he creating a breach of the peace; if we do not, we are apparently to lose our civil liberties. If this is to be persisted in, a breach of the peace will certainly be created. These people certainly will be thrown out neck and crop. In that case, there would be processions and there would be trouble. In this part of the city to which I refer we have never had any trouble with the police. The police have been kind to us and we have obeyed their instructions. If they gave us a line of route, we took it, and we would always abide by their decision. But the Home Secretary would be wise to reconsider this Sub-section and


to see whether it is necessary in the Bill or whether the difficulties which I have raised in connection with it could not be met if it is considered necessary to have it at all.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. STEPHEN: I beg to move, in page 4, line 35, to leave out Sub-section (4).
In view of what the Home Secretary has said, I propose to reserve what I have to say on this Amendment until the next sitting of the Committee.

Motion made, and Question,

"That the Chairman do report Progress; and ask leave to sit again."—[Captain Margesson.]

put, and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again To-morrow.

TRUNK ROADS [MONEY].

Resolution reported:

"That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide that the Minister of Transport shall be the highway authority for the principal roads in Great Britain which constitute the national system of routes for through traffic; to make consequential amendments in the law relating to highways; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of such sums as may be required:

(a) to be paid into the Road Fund for the purpose of meeting the expenses of the Minister under the said Act in the maintenance, repair, and improvement of the roads which by virtue of the said Act become trunk roads, not being roads within the administrative county of London or within any county borough or large burgh in Scotland, or in the construction of any road intended to supersede any road specified as a trunk road by the said Act (whether as originally enacted or as subsequently amended), and such of his expenses in other dealing with trunk roads as may be determined by him with the consent of the Treasury; and
(b) to defray any other expenses of the Minister under the said Act, not being expenses in the construction of trunk roads."

GAS PRICES.

Resolution of the House [11th November] relative to the appointment of a Joint Committee on Gas Prices, which was ordered to be communicated to the Lords, and the Lords Message [18th November] signifying their concurrence in the said Resolution, read:
Ordered,
That a Select Committee of Seven Members be appointed to join with a Committee to be appointed by the Lords to inquire into the powers of regulating charges possessed by the South Metropolitan Gas Company, and other gas companies, authorised to operate under a basic price and basic dividend system, to consider whether adequate protection is afforded to the interests of the different classes of gas consumers under such powers, and to report what action, if any, is necessary.
Ordered,
That leave be given to the Committee to hear parties interested by themselves, their counsel, or agents, so far as the Committee think fit.
Ordered,
That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers, and records.
Ordered,
That Three be the quorum.—[Sir G. Penny.]
Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith and to request them to appoint an equal number of Lords to be joined with the Committee appointed by this House.
Committee nominated of,—Sir Francis Acland, Sir Alan Anderson, Mr. Holmes, Mr. R. C. Morrison, Mr. Peat, Major Shaw, and Mr. R. J. Taylor.—[Sir G.Penny.]

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after Half-past Eleven of the Clock upon Monday evening, Mr. DETUTY-SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at Twenty-seven Minutes before One o'Clock.